A Relational-Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education with Children

Hyunho Shin

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Knox College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College.

Hyunho Shin Doctor of Philosophy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2020

Abstract

In Korean society, which is strongly influenced by authoritarian Confucianism and the resulting social invisibility of children, Korean congregations struggle with generational segregation, which separates children from the entirety of congregational life and learning. One of the most challenging issues the church faces is the absence of true intergenerationality as a faith community and a failure to create a hospitable space for people of all ages to learn and grow together in faith. This is particularly true when it comes to including children in intergenerational pedagogy where they are often marginalized. In such settings, they are considered too immature, or cognitively and/or spiritually unready to participate in meaning- making through critical reflection and thereby form a sense of Christian identity and vocation.

The churches are reluctant to welcome and encourage children’s participation and agency in faith education in a reciprocal way.

This dissertation explores an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education for the Korean Protestant Church. To this end, biblical metaphors and theological reflections on children in relation to the notion of genuine intergenerationality are explored. In proposing such a constructive approach, this thesis employs theologies of children and studies in children’s spiritual cognition as lenses to critically examine intergenerational education theories

ii and to encourage children’s participation and reflection in Christian pedagogy, but also to reconsider the crucial role of critical reflection in socialization-oriented congregational education. In proposing a relational-reflective approach to intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children, this study argues for an appreciation of children’s presence and agency in Christian pedagogy through the sort of approach that harmonizes socialization and critical reflection.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and gratitude. First of all, I want to sincerely thank my supervisor, Dr. Nam Soon Song, Knox College, the University of

Toronto, for her encouragement and support throughout the entire course of my Ph.D. program.

Without her constant encouragement, I could not have completed this wonderful journey with gratitude.

I also offer special thanks to my thesis committee members, Dr. Thomas Reynolds,

Emmanuel College and Dr. Joseph Schner, Regis College, for their willingness to join the committee and guide me throughout my doctoral program for many years. Thanks to internal examiners, Dr. Pamela Couture and Dr. Dorcas Gordon at the Toronto School of Theology and to external examiner, Dr. Kathy Dawson at Columbia Theological Seminary, who all carefully read my thesis and gave me invaluable advice. I also express sincere thanks to Knox College for academic support and financial grants.

I want to extend my gratitude to two churches I served during my visit to US and Canada:

Lord Jesus Korean Church, Richmond, VA, USA, and Milal Church, Toronto, ON, Canada, where I met many godchildren and godparents who inspired and taught me to dream a genuine intergenerational Christian education. Especially, I want to thank Rev. Dr. Hyun Chan Bae and

Rev. Sung Hwan No, for their support and encouragement.

I must also thank Rev. Dr. Syngman Rhee (1931-2015), who inspired me to pursue the vision of reconciliation in my ministry and academic journey. Indeed, he is still alive in my heart as the embodied hope of reconciliation.

To the family and friends who have been with me throughout this whole process, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude: my parents, Sam Sik Shin and Sun Ja Park, my parents-in-law, In

Hwan Choo and Choon Ja Ko, and my wonderful friends: Rev. Yoonho Kang, Rev. Dr.

Hyeongseop Shin, Rev. Dr. Duk Hee Jeong, Rev. Kyung Sam Park, Rev. Man Ho Park, and Rev.

Hyoung Chae Moon. I am also deeply grateful to Rev. Sung Gi Kim in Matanzas, Cuba, for a wonderful accommodation with hospitality for me to concentrate on this thesis during my visit to

Matanzas.

I want to express my heartful gratitude to my wife, Jeong Soon Choo, and two sons,

Yoonseo and Hanseo, for their endless support and encouragement. Without your support, encouragement, and prayer, I could not have begun and completed my Ph.D. program at all. I love you all!

Finally, I thank God for everything You have done for me throughout the entire of my life: “I love you, O Lord, my strength” (Psalm 18:1-2, NRSV).

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

1. The Problem ...... 1

1.1. Historical and Sociocultural Divisions and Challenges ...... 2

1.2. Generational Segregation in the Korean Protestant Church ...... 13

1.3. Imbalance in Intergenerational Christian Education ...... 17

2. Thesis Statement ...... 20

3. Methodology ...... 21

4. Defining Key Terms ...... 22

4.1. Intergenerationality ...... 23

4.2. Socialization / Enculturation ...... 26

4.3. Critical Reflection ...... 27

5. A Structural Outline ...... 27

Chapter 1 Biblical and Theological Understanding of Intergenerationality ...... 30

1. Biblical Metaphors of Intergenerationality ...... 30

1.1. One Body in Christ (Rom 12:3–4; 1 Cor 12:12–27; Eph 2:13–16)...... 31

1.2. People of All Ages as Prophets (Joel 2:28–32; Acts 2:1–42)...... 37

1.3. “Let the Children Come to Me”: Radical Welcome (Mark 9:33–37; 10:13–16) ...... 40

2. Why Children? A Rationale for a Theology of Children...... 44

2.1. The de Facto Doctrine of Children: Devalued or Ambivalent Views on Children in Theology ...... 45

2.2. Revisiting Childhood as Theological Reflection ...... 47

3. Children and Intergenerationality ...... 50

3.1. Children in and with the Faith Community ...... 51

3.2. Children and Mutuality ...... 54

3.3. Children as Spiritual and Moral Agents ...... 58

Chapter 2 An Exploration in Spiritual Cognition in Childhood ...... 64

1. Two Approaches to Children’s Spiritual Awareness ...... 65

2. Hermeneutic Phenomenological Approach to Spiritual Awareness in Children ...... 70

2.1. Hermeneutic Phenomenology as a Framework for Children’s Spirituality ..... 70

2.2. Four Characteristics of Spiritual Awareness in Children ...... 73

2.2.1. The Felt Sense ...... 73

2.2.2. Integrating Awareness ...... 75

2.2.3. Weaving the Threads of Meaning ...... 77

2.2.4. Spiritual Questing ...... 79

3. Cognitive-cultural Approach to Spiritual Development in Children ...... 82

3.1. Cognitive-cultural Approach to Children’s Spiritual Development ...... 83

3.2. Spiritual Cognition in Children’s Spiritual Development ...... 86

3.2.1. Domain-specificity ...... 86

3.2.2. Intuitive ontology and counterintuitive ontology ...... 87

3.2.3. Role of culture in shaping spiritual cognition ...... 91

3.3. Spiritual and Religious Concepts: Supernatural Agents and Actions ...... 92

Chapter 3 A Critical Analysis of Socialization Models of Intergenerational Christian Education ...... 97

1. The Development of Intergenerational Christian Education Theories ...... 97

2. Socialization Models of Intergenerational Christian Education Since the 1970s ...... 100

2.1. Foundational Models: Socialization/Enculturation Approach ...... 101

2.1.1. The Religious Socialization Model ...... 101

vii

2.1.2. Faith Enculturation Model ...... 108

2.1.3. The Event-Centered Congregational Education Model ...... 114

2.2. Current Intergenerational Christian Education Models: 1988-Present...... 123

2.2.1. Program-based Model: Intergenerational Religious Education (IGRE) ...... 123

2.2.2. Community-oriented Model: Intergenerational Faith Formation (IGFF) ...... 129

2.2.3. Ministry-Oriented Model: Intergenerational Christian Formation (IGCF) ...... 134

3. Evaluation of Socialization Models: Contributions and Limitations...... 137

3.1. Relational Issue: Insufficient Partnership in the Faith Community ...... 138

3.2. Pedagogical Issue: Devaluation of Critical Reflection by People of All Ages ...... 141

Chapter 4 The Potential of a Critical Reflective Pedagogy for Intergenerational Christian Education ...... 144

1. Total Community Catechesis ...... 145

1.1. Thomas Groome: Reflective-Relational Faith Education Approach ...... 145

1.2. Groome’s Evaluation of Christian Socialization/Enculturation ...... 147

1.3. Total Community Catechesis...... 148

2. Relational Turn in Groome’s Epistemological Foundation ...... 152

2.1. “Being” as Agent-Subjects ...... 154

2.2. Agent-Subjects-in Place ...... 156

2.3. Agent-Subjects in Time ...... 157

3. Shared Christian Praxis: Critical Reflective Pedagogy ...... 159

3.1. A Pedagogy of Participation ...... 160

3.2. A Pedagogy of Reflection ...... 161

viii

3.3. A Pedagogy of Dialogue...... 163

3.4. A Pedagogy of Presentation ...... 163

3.5. Five movements of Shared Christian Praxis ...... 164

4. Children’s Participation in Critical Reflective Pedagogy ...... 171

4.1. Theological and Philosophical View of Children ...... 171

4.2. Readiness for Critical Reflective Pedagogy ...... 174

4.3. Pedagogical Planning ...... 178

4.4. Children in Total Community Catechesis ...... 182

5. Assessing the Critical Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education 185

5.1. Praxis- and Reflection-based Relational Turn ...... 185

5.2. Reflective-Relational Pedagogical Approach ...... 187

Chapter 5 A Relational-Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education . 192

1. Defining a Relational-Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education 192

2. Context: Intergenerational Congregation as Faith Community of Caritas ...... 197

3. Learners and Teachers: People of All Ages as Learners and Pedagogical Agents ...... 199

4. Methods: Relational-Reflective Pedagogical Practices for Intergenerational Christian Community ...... 203

4.1. “Welcoming People of All Ages to a Community of Faith and Growth”: Pedagogical Practice of Hospitality ...... 203

4.2. “Interweaving a Bojagi Together”: Pedagogical Practice of Story-Interweaving ...... 207

4.3. “Collaboration Beyond the Wall”: Pedagogical Practice of Collaboration .... 212

Conclusion ...... 216

Bibliography ...... 218

Introduction

1. The Problem

In postmodern Korean society, Korean congregations struggle with a practice of generational segregation, which separates children from the entirety of congregational life and learning. While generational segregation in the Korean Protestant church is not a new problem, it is increasingly considered one of the most challenging issues the church encounters in terms of the loss of true intergenerationality as a faith community, which is instead fragmented between young and old generations, as well as even within the same generations.1 In the matter of educating people in faith, Korean congregations fail, not only in creating a hospitable space for people of all ages to learn and grow together in faith, but also in sharing Christian identity and vocation between the generations in the Christian community. This is particularly true when it comes to including children in intergenerational pedagogy, something currently occurring in a twofold way: by placing children into an age-segregated educational setting and expecting that they will stick to the Christian faith and community even after growing up; and by privatizing the communal task and responsibility for educating children as though this were something that needs to be done by parents at home rather than by the congregation as a whole. These problematic practices are based on an ambivalent theological view on children: that is, children are created by God, but are submissive and not-yet-prepared.2 As a result, Korean congregations

1 Shin-Geun Jang, “Gyohoe-kajŏng ŭi yŏngyesŭng ŭl jihyanghanŭn gansede gidokgyogyoyuk: adong ŭl jungshimŭro” [An Intergenerational Education for Church-Family in Solidarity: Focusing on the Children Age Group,] Shinhak Nondan [Theological Forum] 63 (2011): 217–219. 2 Jerome Berryman, Children and the Theologians: Clearing the Way for Grace (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2009), 203–205.

2 seem to forget their calling to be a true “community” of faith as the body of Christ as well as a community of love and reconciliation in an individualizing, fragmented society.

Another problem to note with intergenerational Christian education in the Korean

Protestant church is the absence of a critical reflective pedagogy. While intergenerational worship and communal services are sometimes provided as annual or seasonal events gathering people of all ages in intergenerational educational settings, children are usually seen as passive attendees or observers, and their participation and agency is entirely overlooked. In such settings, they are considered too immature or unready, cognitively or spiritually, to participate in meaning-making through critical reflection and thereby form a sense of Christian identity and vocation. In sum, the churches are reluctant to welcome and encourage children’s participation and agency in faith education in a reciprocal way.

These problems prevent congregations not only from seeing children as a significant part of the intergenerational faith community, but also from providing them with opportunities to reflect on and search for Christian ways of life and wisdom in response to challenges and questions from their personal lives, as well as from the congregations and societies they belong to. These relational and pedagogical problems are rendered more complicated by the sociocultural and historical context and values deeply embedded in the Korean society. In what follows, I look first at the contextual challenges behind generational segregation in Korean congregations.

1.1. Historical and Sociocultural Divisions and Challenges

The historical and sociocultural background to and influence on generational segregation in Korea is complex. From this complexity, I point out three influences that are particularly

3 relevant: that is, authoritarian Confucian culture, the social invisibility of children in their different experiences of historical and sociocultural events, and the banking education system and credentialism in an extremely competitive society.

Authoritarian Confucian Consciousness and Social Structure

In South Korea, since the Joseon dynasty of 1392 to 1910, Confucianism has been one of the dominant influences on living and thinking in terms of its moral system, ways of communication, proper manners, and relations between generations, gender, and social classes.3

Confucianism basically emphasizes collectivism, the importance of relationships and group belonging, and the need for order within the society to promote social harmony.4 According to

Confucius’ teaching, people are not born equal and do not become equal during their lives. When people are born, they are weak and need parents.5 This idea has established a unique hierarchical structure in the family and kinship system, which is the basic unit of society and whose values and structure extend to the country’s ruling system.

The family type in Korea was the patrilineal and patriarchal stem family system, a consanguineous system designed to preserve the biological and cultural continuity of the family based on patrilineal rules of descent.6 This system reflected Confucian ways of relating, which

3 James Newton Poling and HeeSun Kim, Korean Resources for Pastoral Theology and Care: Dance of Han, Jeong, and Salim (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 42–43. 4 While many Korean sociologists argue that Confucianism did not exist as a unified cultural system, there are several different perspectives and interpretations on ways various Confucian ideologies coexisted and interacted throughout Korean history. Hong-gi Choe, Hanʼguk kajok mit chʻinjok chedo ŭi ihae: Chŏntʻong kwa hyŏndae ŭi pyŏnhwa [Understanding Korean Family and Kinship System] (Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 2006), 34. In this study, references to Confucianism denote a general understanding. 5 T. Youn-ja Shim, Min-Sun Kim, and Judith N. Martin, Changing Korea: Understanding Culture and Communication (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2008), 25–26. 6 Noriko O. Tsuya and Larry Bumpass, eds., Marriage, Work and Family Life in Comparative Perspective: Japan, South Korea and the United States (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2004), 4; Dennis Hart, From Tradition to Consumption: Construction of a Capitalist Culture in South Korea (Seoul, Korea: Jimmondang International, 2001), 23–24.

4 emphasized social harmony through filial piety and conformity to hierarchy and authority.7 The order of the hierarchy was given by supremacy ascribed to age (parents over children), birth order (first-born over later-born), and gender (males over females), in five fundamental relationships in society (“Oh-ryoon”): father-son, husband-wife, elder brother-younger brother, king-subject, and friend-friend. Based on these relationships, the ideals of the patrilineal and patriarchal family primarily affected matters such as patrilineal family descent, rites for ancestors, filial piety, the wellbeing of the family, and the expansion of the family fortune and property.8 To put it simply, the family system presupposed hierarchal intergenerational relationships.

While the hierarchical family system justified differentiation in the order, the family system in Confucianism was ideally oriented to two significant relationships: vertical and horizontal. Based on “yi” (義, righteousness), the vertical relationship between the elder and the younger would have originally included mutual responsibilities within the hierarchical order, i.e., respect and loyalty demanded upwards, and care and protection downwards. For the horizontal relationship based on “ren” (仁, benevolence), the dominance of the family and community over the individual would have been understood in terms of interrelatedness and interdependence. 9

That means “I” have meaning insofar as others exist, and the meaning of “I” depends on relationships with others and situations where “I” and “others” are positioned, each taking care of the other. This interrelatedness and interdependence in the collectivistic family system is expressed in the term “u-ri,” or the so-called “we’ism” (or we-ness), which gives preference to the genitive “our” in expressing relationships and possessions (i.e. our father, our house, our car,

7 Shim, Kim, Martin, Changing Korea, 26. 8 Hart, From Tradition to Consumption, 24. 9 Choe, Hanʼguk kajok mit chʻinjok chedo ŭi ihae, 37.

5 etc.).10 Through socialization in the family, the moral philosophy and value system of

Confucianism expanded and was applied to the broader governance of society and all social relationships.

However, despite the idealism of relational and intergenerational relationships in

Confucianism, such values were not always transmitted and practiced in an ideal way, but were often distorted, reinforcing an authoritarian hierarchical order and preserving the status quo in family and society, especially the position of adults, men, and those in authority, and, as a result, creating generational segregation and conflict. Korean Confucian philosopher, Doil Kim, argues that the authoritarian ruling system and factionalism in modern Korean society were caused by a

“fictitious extension” of Confucian familism’s patriarchal authoritarianism and exclusive solidarity respectively. Here the authoritarian ruling system in a group or society is extended from an authoritarian family patriarchy centralized in a male elder, based on age, emphasis on filial piety, and the exclusion of women. In modern Korean society “yi” operated as a principle of distinction and segregation to maintain the status quo of leaders in society and to classify people according to their status and background, rather than one that provided equal opportunities for people.11 Meanwhile, solidarity among a homogeneous clan became a form of factionalism, where certain groups of people were included and others barred through practices of nepotism and academic factionalism, and in which “ren” malfunctioned as a principle of exclusion.12

10 Shim, Kim, Martin, Changing Korea, 44, 67. 11 Doil Kim, “Yugyo kajokchuŭiŭi ijungsŏng:Pʻabŏl kwa kwŏnwijuŭiŭi yugachŏk kiwŏn“ [The Duplicity of Confucian Familism: The Duet between Factionalism and Authoritarianism], Chʻŏrhak [Philosophy] 135 (May 2018): 6–12. 12Doil Kim, “Yugyo kajokchuŭiŭi ijungsŏng,” 12–15.

These two trends combined—patriarchal authoritarianism and exclusive solidarity—led to authoritarian hierarchism becoming a major cause of generational segregation in current-day

Korean society and culture. Young people are separated from social engagement as agents as well as disconnected from communication and relationship with the older generations in both family and community. In particular, views on children are subject to biases that are influenced by notions of authoritarian hierarchism: they are to be submissive and obedient to their elders without consideration for their rights and agency in society. A negative reaction against the generational segregation and authoritarianism caused by the traditional Confucian hierarchism, has become prevalent among young Koreans born in a democratic environment since the late

1980s. For these young people, the authoritarian Confucian social order ought to be replaced with more democratic and egalitarian values. As sociologist Ju-Hyun Kim puts it, such anti- authoritarianism appears to be reflected in “ageist” attitudes against the elderly in Korea, as well as in criticism of Confucian hierarchism.13 An example is found in a popular Korean neologism

“kkondae,” which can be loosely translated as a “condescending older person” who doles out unsolicited advice and demands absolute obedience from their juniors.14 This word shows how young people counteract the authoritarian hierarchical social order, but also how that order aggravates generational segregation and gaps in Korean society.

Different Experiences of Historical and Cultural Events and the Social Invisibility of Children

13 Ju-Hyun Kim, “Yŏnryŏngjuŭi gwanjom ŭl tonghan nonyŏn ŭi i'he” [The Change in the Status of Older People in Korea in Terms of Ageism], Sahŏi wa yŏksa 82 [Society and History] (2009): 365–366. 14 Soo Zee Kim, “Kkondae,” BBC, July 21, 2019, http://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190718-kkondae. The National Institute of Korean Language defines the term “kkondae” or “kkondae-ish” as an attitude of generalizing one’s experience and trying to teach others, arguing one is right. “Kkondae-sureopda” (“kkondae-ish”), National Institute of Korean Language, accessed September 25, 2019, http://opendict.korean.go.kr/dictionary/view?sense_no=1371277.

Generational segregation in Korea is deeply related to the different historical and cultural experiences of the generations. Although there are various criteria for distinguishing generations in the Korean context, sociologists largely agree that major historical and political events have strongly impacted the shaping of each generation since the Korean War (1950–1953), which left

Korea the only divided country in the world.15 According to Korean sociologist, Setbyol Choi,

Korean society has undergone a cataclysm during the past sixty years, which can be summarized as “compressive modernization,” in that it has created a new generational theory approximately every decade. She points out the major historical, political, and socioeconomic events have heavily shaped the Korean generations as follows: the Korean War (the 1950s), compressed industrial growth and the “Yushin” Regime under dictatorial governments (the 1960s–1970s), the democratization movements (the 1980s), the IMF financial crisis (the 1990s), the settlement of neo-liberalism and the change to a technological society (the 2000s), and the presidential impeachment (the 2010s).16 She goes on to argue that these events have forged four generations correspondingly: the Industrialization or War-experienced generation (born 1949 and before), the

Baby Boom generation (born between 1950 and 1969), the X generation or “Culture” generation

(born in between 1970-1979), and “Eighty-eight Man Won” generation (born in between 1980–

15 Many Korean generational sociologists draw upon German sociologist Karl Mannheim’s cultural sociological concept of “cohort,” a particular age-group, to understand “generation” as members of a cohort who live through the same historical and social events during their youthful years and experience them as significant in developing a common consciousness, identity, world view and social and political attitudes. Karl Mannheim, “The Problem of Generations,” in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, ed. Paul Kecskemeti (London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1952), 290, 302-312. 16 Setbyol Choi, Munhwasahŭihak ŭro barabon hanguk ŭi sedae yŏndaegi: sede gan munhwa gyŏnghŏm kwa munhwa galdŭng ŭi jahwasang [Generation Chronicle in Korea: Portrait of Cultural Experience and Cultural Conflicts Between Generations] (Seoul, Korea: Ehwa Women’s University Press, 2018), 33-38, 243-289.

1992).17 Except for the X generation, the formation of the other three generations were largely influenced by political and socioeconomic events.18

Accordingly, such different experiences in a rapidly changing society have become one of the reasons for deepening generational fragmentation and conflict in Korean society in terms of a narrow understanding of other generations.19 Sociologist Jae Heung Park argues that the axis of cultural differences and divisions between generations can be set out as developmentalism vs. consumerism, collectivism vs. individualism, and authoritarianism vs. anti-authoritarianism.20

Such cultural conflict has hindered mutual communication between generations and the absence of reciprocal relationships and communal activity as well as the absence of intergenerational solidarity.

In the meantime, Korean sociologists, who categorize the generations according to historical and political criteria, do not consider or include school-age children and youth in their categorization. For example, Choi categorizes four generations of people born between 1949 and before and 1992 (ages 23 to 67 and older, as of 2016) based on her analysis of major generational studies in Korea.21 Although there was a period when youth and young adults were

17 The “Eighty-eight Man Won” generation denotes people born between 1980 and 1992, who cannot escape from being non-regular workers earning less than 880,000 Korean Won per month (around 800 US dollar). Choi, Munhwasahŭihak ŭro barabon hanguk ŭi sedae yŏndaegi, 38; Seok-Hoon Woo and Kwon-Il Park, Palsip palmanwon sede: julmang ŭi side e ssŭnŭn hŭimangŭi gyŏngjehak [88 Man Won Generation: Economics of Hope in the Age of Despair] (Seoul, Korea: Rediang Media, 2007). 18 Choi, Munhwasahŭihak ŭro barabon hanguk ŭi sedae yŏndaegi, 42–44. Some Korean educators identify the “Millennial” generation as people born between 1980 and 1996 in the North American context, and characterize them as community/team oriented, open to diversity, familiar with social network service, and multitasking. The term was coined by American authors Will Strauss and Neil Howe in Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 (New York: Morrow, 1991). While this term is sometimes used in business and educational fields in Korea, it is not frequently used in scholarly literature and does not include children and youth. 19 Soo-Kang Kim, “Chungjangnŏn 90%, 'Noin kwa sotong ŏryŏwŏ...' sedegan danjŏl,” [“90% of the Young Adults, ‘Hard to Communicate with the Elderly’...Intergenerational Disconnection,] Yonhapnews TV, September 24, 2018, http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?oid=422&aid=0000339598. 20 Jae-Heung Park, Hanguk ŭi sede munje: chai wa galdŭng ŭl nŏmŏsŏ [The Problem of Generations in Korea: Beyond Differences and Conflicts] (Paju, Korea: Nanam Publishing House, 2005), 176–182. 21 Choi, Munhwasahŭihak ŭro barabon hanguk ŭi sedae yŏndaegi, 44-47.

9 a major focus of culture-based generational studies in Korea—for example, in the “X generation” discourse in the 1990s—children are not considered in the generational categorization based on the influence of political and sociohistorical factors, although in reality they coexist with other generations in the society.22 Children are too often invisible, except in the generational marketing of globalized capitalism, as practical theologian Joyce Mercer rightly points out, 23 and in the

Korean context, in the education policies related to the university entrance examination system.

Banking Education System in an Extremely Competitive Society

While the aforementioned sociocultural challenges have helped create problems of intergenerational Christian education in terms of generational segregation and the submissive social position and invisibility of children, the extremely competitive educational system leads directly to a lack of reflective pedagogy for children and possibly for adults as well. In Korean society, the charge of credentialism has been explicitly and repeatedly raised as causing a serious social malaise of extreme competition, inequality, and academic discrimination. Indeed, it is impossible to understand why Korean society has become so competitive without looking at the so-called “hakryuk-chabyul,” which can be translated as discrimination according to one’s

22 On the ignorance about childhood in sociology, Finland sociologist Leena Alanen argues that “childhood sociology has found very little resonance in sociological theory or general sociological analysis and the default position of most social and political theory is either to discard children entirely or to regard them only as ‘adults in waiting.’” Leena Alanen, “Theorizing Childhood,” Childhood 21, no. 1 (January 2014): 3. Analyzing the reasons 1) why any understanding of children has often been based on developmental psychological perspectives on the individual child and 2) why young children are seen as being merely in a preparatory phase, with life conventionally seen as a “movement from amorphous plasticity through mature competence towards terminal rigidity,” Alanen argues for an understanding of “children as social beings” and “childhood as a generational phenomenon” which implies intergenerationality, “in that children are constituted specifically as children primarily within intergenerational relations, that is as a generational category of beings that is internally related to other existing generational categories, especially adults.” Leena Alanen, “Childhood and Intergenerationality: Toward an Intergenerational Perspective on Child Well-Being,” in Handbook of Child Well-being: Theories, Methods and Policies in Global Perspective, ed. Asher Ben-Arieh et al. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2014), 133, 139–140, 143. 23 Joyce Mercer, Welcoming Children: A Practical Theology of Childhood (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005), 84–87.

10 educational level, i.e., the school and ranking university from which one graduated. 24 In a

“hakryuk-chabyul” society, people are classified and factionalized according to educational background and alma mater. Many Koreans believe that whether or not a person succeeds in life is determined mostly by educational background, to the point where such a competitive culture drives all of society, and parents in particular, to focus only on how a child might enter a prestigious university from the time they are very young. As a result, many people believe that graduating from a good school and at a good educational level is the most important means of achieving success in the social hierarchy.

The “hakryuk society” affects educational practices and methods greatly in the way that it adheres to a “banking education” system, a term coined by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. In such a system, learners are expected to deposit knowledge, rather than pose liberating questions; study to enter prestigious schools as a means of success and upward mobility, rather than pursue wisdom for personal and communal well-being; and memorize what they are supposed to learn according to a fixed curriculum, rather than reflect critically through dialogue on social reality and their personal lives.25 Instead of encouraging children and youth to think creatively and critically, the school pushes them to accumulate knowledge that holds no meaning for them and their actual personal and social lives, except for the purpose of entering good schools. In other words, creative and critically reflective education is not considered as important as memorizing all they have learned and answering questions correctly in tests. As Canadian educator and philosopher Henry Giroux puts it, in Korea the extremely competitive education system has become a “disimagination machine.” Here “to think critically, imagine the unimaginable, and

24 Bu Tae Kim, “Hanguk Hakryuk-hakbul sahŏi gehyukron e dehan bunsukjuk gochal” [An Analytical Consideration on Arguments of Reforming Korean Hakryuk-hakbul Society], The Jounral of Yeolin Education 22, no. 3 (2014): 2–4. 25 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 57–58.

11 engage in thoughtful and critical dialogue” has been undermined, both in people’s personal lives and in social transformation.26

Such a consciousness and atmosphere makes Korean society and its education system extremely competitive and meritocratic, as reflected in The 5th and 6th Periodic Child Report of

Republic of Korea to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Children Suffering from

Academic Pressure.27 On average, Korean children study forty to seventy hours per week in school, and in private cram schools called “hakwon,” they put in a minimum of seven hours and a maximum of twice as many average study hours than children of other OECD member states

(thirty-three hours).28 Many children come home from hakwon at 10 p.m. and youth at 11 p.m. or

12 a.m., even on Sundays, in order to prepare for prestigious high school and college entrance.29

Since 2009, the main cause of death of children and youth aged between ten and nineteen has been suicide (35.7 percent in 2018), and 40.7 percent of Korean children who attempted or thought about suicide cite excessive academic stress as the primary reason.30 In October 2019 the

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed a concern about excessive academic

26 Henry A. Giroux, The Violence of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America’s Disimagination Machine (San Francisco, CA: City Light Books, 2014), 27. 27 The Child Voice, The 5th and 6th Periodic Child Report of Republic of Korea to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Children Suffering from Academic Pressure (Seoul, Korea: The Child Voice, 2018), 4–24. The report was written by twenty-three Korean children aged between ten and eighteen who participated in the nation-wide “Child Voice” project with 394 other children. The project was based on online and offline survey and research from 1,472 responses between 2015 and 2017, and the aim was to “explicitly expose snapshots of the sufferings of Korean children and the country’s current child rights situation by collecting as many views from children.” The Child Voice, Child Report, 1. 28 The Child Voice, Child Report, 5; Chang-Su Lee and Seung-Jin Ahn, “(Chŏngsonyŏn gi salrija) sutresu pul gihŏi umnŭn aidŭl... hansungan e 'hwa' pokbal” [Boosting Juveniles’ Energy… No Way to Relieve Stress, ‘Anger’ Explodes], Segye Newspaper, March 7, 2018, http://www.segye.com/newsView/20180307015321?OutUrl=naver. 29 Ye-Won Park, “‘Harurado shija'... 'Hakwon ilyoil hyumuje' chujin” [‘I Want to take a Rest Even for a Day’… Office of Education Legistlates ‘Hakwon Sunday Closing Ordinance’], KBS News, August 19, 2019, http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=4264842&ref=A. 30 The Child Voice, Child Report, 3; Young-Ji Kim et al., Hanguk adong chŏngsonyŏn ingwŏn silte yŏngu VI [The Study on Rights of Korean Children and Youth VI] (Seoul, Korea: National Youth Policy Institute, 2016), 370–372; Statistics Korea, Causes of Death Statistics 2018, 16–18.

12 burdens and highly competitive education conditions that literally deprive children of their childhood.31

Such an educational system not only prevents children from sharing their life experiences with mentors, such as teachers, parents, and other adults around them, but also ignores children’s agency in education, even making them think their agency less important or less mature than that of adults. As some interviewees responded in the Child Report: “Adults always make better choices”; “Children are immature in making decisions”; “Reflecting children’s views are not much of a help in policy decisions.”32 In this competitive and hierarchical atmosphere, children’s voices in education are barely heard, which may in turn encourage and reinforce an age- segregated social system. Also, as Korean sociologist Jae-Heung Park points out, children and youth in Korean society tend not to reflect until their college years, for there is a moratorium on the interpretation of their lives during their childhood and adolescent years, because of the admission-oriented schooling system.33 This loss of children’s beings and voices is also apparent in the adult-centered and adult-prioritized Korean congregations.

Such sociohistorical and educational problems have strongly impacted not only Korean society, but also Korean congregations and their educational ministries. Intergenerational

Christian education in Korea is hugely affected in two particular ways: generational segregation and marginalization of children in intergenerational congregations (the relational problem) and the absence of a reflective process in intergenerational pedagogy (the pedagogical problem).

31 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the Combined Fifth and Sixth Periodic Reports of the Republic of Korea, CRC/C/KOR/CO/5–6, 2019, G.41. 32 The Child Voice, Child Report, 10. 33 Park, Hanguk ŭi sede munje, 58.

1.2. Generational Segregation in the Korean Protestant Church

In their Christian education, Korean congregations do not appear to underscore the communal and relational nature of the intergenerational faith community as the body of Christ.

Given the church is called “Gyo-hoe”(敎會) in Korean, which means “a congregation that teaches,” since the introduction of Protestantism in the late nineteenth century, the Korean church has emphasized the transmission of biblical knowledge in an age-segregated schooling system over building and practicing reciprocal intergenerational relationships in faith as its central method of Christian education.

There was little interest in intergenerational Christian education in Korea until the early

1990s, when articles and theses on the topic began to appear.34 The absence of intergenerational

Christian pedagogy is deeply related to 1) the naissance of Korean congregations as age- segregated Bible study groups, and 2) the adoption of an age-segregated schooling system in church education from the 1910s.

Korean Congregations as Age-Segregated Bible Study Communities

Korean Protestant congregations gathered as age-segregated from the introduction of

Christianity in the Korean peninsula in the late 1880s. Charles Allen Clark (1878–1961),

American missionary and the first professor of practical theology in Korea, notes that the first churches in Korea between the 1890s and the 1900s were almost identified with the church

34 Woong-Seop Chung, “Gansede gyoyuk ŭl wŭihan sinang gongdongche hyŏngsŏng” [Formation of the Faith Community through Intergenerational Education], Godokgyo gyoyuk [Christian Education] 211 (Jun 1985): 41–46; “Sinang gongdongche ŭi gansede gyoyuk: sŏngsŏjuk gicho wa gyoyuk ironjuk gŭngŏ rŭl jungshimŭro” [Intergenerational Education in the Faith Community], Hanshin Journal 9 (Nov 1992): 65–114. The first article published in Korea that used the term “intergenerational” in Christian education is Ye-Ja Lee’s “Gansede gyoyuk” [Intergenerational Education], Gyoyuk gyohŏi [Educating Church] 84 (1982): 298–304.

14 school: “The whole Church is the Sunday School in Korea … [with] ‘teaching emphasized even more than preaching’” (italics original).35 He goes on to note: “From the very beginning of the work in the country, there have been Sunday Schools in every Church, everyone attending, as a matter of course, from the oldest adults down to the babies … [with] three Sunday Schools in each church, one for children at 9 a.m., one for men at 10:30, and one for women at noon.”36 In short, Korean congregations and their education programs were basically age-segregated from the very beginning and there were no intentionally intergenerational pedagogical events in the church.

There are two reasons for age-segregated congregations and the absence of intergenerational Christian pedagogy: the influence of authoritarian Confucian familism, and the absence of a theological view on children as full members of the faith community and the reign of God. First, the influence of authoritarian Confucian hierarchism on the formation of the early churches in Korea has been significant from the beginning. Practical theologian, Kyoo Hoon Oh points out that such Confucian authoritarianism has heavily influenced Korean Protestant congregations, especially in terms of the formation of an authoritarian consciousness of adults, men, pastors, and church leaders over the young, women, and laity, and a view of church offices as hierarchical power ranks.37 Such an authoritarian culture segregates young people from congregational life and events by viewing them as immature and expecting them to be

35 Charles Allen Clark, The Korean Church and the Nevius Methods (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1930), 151. The emphasis on teaching was based on a principle given by John Nevius (1829–1893), an American missionary dispatched from the American Presbyterian Mission, who provided missionaries who worked in Korea in 1890 with missional principles and methods called the “Nevius Plan,” which later became the most significant foundation in shaping Korean congregational ministry. 36 Clark, The Korean Church and the Nevius Methods, 151–152. 37 Kyoo Hoon Oh, “Hanguk gyohŏi ŭi kwonwŭijuŭi munhwa e gwanhan mokhŏisangdamjuk gochal: byŏnhwa wa hŏisim ŭi simrijuk yŏkdong” [Study on the Authoritarian Culture of the Korean Churches: Transformation of the Self and the Psychological Dynamics of Conversion], Journal of Pastoral Care and Counseling 17 (November 2011): 45–48, 57–59.

15 submissive. In this sense, in the Korean context the age-segregated congregation structure is closely related to cultural, and not only to developmental factors.

The second reason is the absence of a theological view of people of all ages as full members of the faith community and the reign of God. In a theological discourse on ecclesiology and theological anthropology in Korea, the topics of children and childhood are rarely discussed, except in discussions on children’s baptism and education, and this reality influences generational segregation in congregational ministry in many ways. For instance, the absence of theological discourse on children implies they already belong to, and are already being nurtured in the faith community. However, this indifferent view often ignores their spiritual and pedagogical agency and active participation in congregational learning where they might mutually learn and grow together with adults. Korean Christian educator Wonyoung Sohn argues that in response, the Korean Protestant church should pursue a theology of historical- eschatological community, in which people of all ages find themselves called “Laos Tou Theou”

(people of God) and participate in the whole mode of ministry. It is a model that would allow children and youth to experience and participate in the full functions of ministry in an age- appropriate manner.38 He proposes “the children’s church” model as an alternative to Christian educational ministry. Although this approach has some positive aspects in terms of providing children with experience of all the modes of ministry, just like adults, it basically takes an age- segregated format in its pursuit of the “body of Christ” and a “koinonia of faith, hope, and love.”

Age-segregated Schooling System

38 Wonyoung Sohn, "Ŏrini-chŏngsonyŏn gyohŏi ŭi hyŏngsŏng ŭl wihan gyohŏironjuk ŭimi ŭi tamgu" [A Study on Ecclesiological Meanings for Establishing Children-Youth Church], Korean Journal of Religious Education 44 (February 2014): 91–112; Joon Kwan Un, Silchŏnjuk gyohŏiron [Practical Ecclesiology] (Seoul, Korea: The Christian Literature Society of Korea, 1999), 42, 493–501.

The other reason for the absence of intergenerational Christian education in Korean congregations is closely related to the adoption of the age-segregated schooling system. Since the

American Sunday School system and curriculum were introduced by missionaries in the mid

1900s, age-segregated Christian education was followed in earnest and has been the main format in Korean Church education since. In 1905 the General Council of Protestant Evangelical

Mission was founded by missionaries, and under that Council a Sunday School Committee was established for the development and translation of a curriculum for children.39 In 1907, “So-a- hoe,” the first Sunday schools for children, began in four cities.40 While Sunday school had been aimed at all age-groups, albeit in an age-segregated way until that time, since then it specifically meant children. Furthermore, the age-segregation in the education system and curriculum was entirely settled, as little of intergenerational interest is to be found either in theory and practice or in the curriculum.41

One of problems with generationally-segregated education is that children are understood as submissive, passive, and not-yet-prepared potential members. This is based on a developmental premise that children are immature and underdeveloped cognitively and spiritually; they are not capable of reflecting their lived faith or making a spiritual and moral contribution to congregational learning and mission. Because of beliefs about age-related

39 Clark, The Korean Church and the Nevius Methods, 169. 40 In Soo Kim, Hanguk gidok gyohŏi ŭi yŏksa [History of the Christian Church in Korea] (Seoul, Korea: Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary Press, 1997), 168; Youndong Church, Sajinuro bonun yŏndong gyohŏi 110nyŏn yŏksa: 1894–2004 [The 110-year History of Youndong Church (Viewed in Photographs): 1894– 2004] (Seoul, Korea: Presbyterian Church of Korea Youndong Church, 2004), 19. The churches in four cities were Youndong Church in Seoul, Jangdaehyun Church in Pyongyang, Buk Churck in Sunchun, and Suhmoon Church in Jeonju. 41 For example, according to the history of Christian education and curriculum development in the Presbyterian Church of Korea reported by Yong Soo Koh, there is no reference to an intergenerational curriculum and educational events until the 1990s. Yong Soo Ko, “Dehan yesugyo jangrohŏi(tonghap) ŭi gidokgyo gyoyuksa” [History of Christian Education in the Presbyterian Church of Korea], Gidokgyo gyoyuk nonchong 5 [Journal of Christian Education in Korea] (1999): 95–118.

17 cognitive developmental capabilities, Korean congregations tend to transmit biblical and theological knowledge to “less educated” young people, giving them few opportunities to participate in the formative and reflective aspects of Christian education along with adult members. As Paulo Freire puts it, “banking education” still dominates as an educational method and has at times been confused with intentional religious enculturation, which regards the congregation as the curriculum as well as the teacher. Unfortunately, this understanding results in neglect of children’s spiritual growth as well as neglect of their potential contribution to congregational learning, and furthermore, to neglect of one of the most important goals of

Christian education in congregations: that people of all ages might learn and grow together in faith and love as one body of Christ. In short, the loss of true intergenerationality and the generational segregation in the education of Korean congregations, have resulted not only in a failure to build the communal identity of the church as one body in Christ toward the reign of

God, but also in a failure to share faith between the generations.

1.3. Imbalance in Intergenerational Christian Education

The second problem with Christian education in Korean congregations relates to the pedagogical issue. Korean congregations fail to take an integrated approach to intergenerational

Christian education—i.e., they often ignore the role of critical reflection—and thus fail to harmonize enculturation with the reflective process of meaning and decision-making in sharing and practicing faith. Sang-Jin Park argues that, in the Korean context, separation of informative education, which is supposed to be for children, and formative ministry, which is supposed to be

18 for adults, tends to reinforce generational segregation, and fails to encourage generational interaction and integration to overcome cultural differences in sharing faith.42

Since the 2000s, Korean congregations have paid attention to the faith community approach as an alternative to the knowledge-transmitting schooling paradigm. For example, in

2001, the Presbyterian Church of Korea developed an educational ministry-based curriculum titled “The Kingdom of God: Calling and Response.” This curriculum was heavily influenced by the faith community approach, especially the educational ministry model proposed by Maria

Harris, who understands the entire function of congregational ministry as a curriculum in a broad sense, i.e., koinonia (the curriculum of community), leiturgia (the curriculum of prayer), didache

(the curriculum of teaching), kerygma (the curriculum of proclamation), and diakonia (the curriculum of service).43

While this curriculum was an attempt to overcome knowledge-transmitting instruction or

“banking education” through a holistic approach to Christian education, two problems emerged.

First, the community-focused approach overlooked intergenerational education in general and cross-age pedagogy in particular. For example, the theory manual states that the curriculum aims to help “people of all ages … participate in the communion of Christ and maintain the organic unity” of the body of Christ,44 but it focuses mostly on an age-specific curriculum with only two short notes about intergenerational education.45 The second problem is that a curriculum based

42 Sang-Jin Park, “Hanguk gidokgyo gyoyuk ŭi jindan kwa kwaje “ [Analysis and Tasks of Christian Education in Korea], Gidokgyo gyoyuk nonchong 24 [Journal of Christian Education in Korea] (June 2010): 45. 43 The Presbyterian Church of Korea Education Department, Hananim ŭi nara: burusim kwa ŭngdap, gyoyuk kwajung iron jichimsŏ(I): iron [The Kingdom of God: Calling and Response, Curriculum Theory Manual (I): Theory] (Seoul, Korea: Publishing House of the PCK, 2001), 35; Maria Harris, Fashion Me a People: Curriculum in the Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989). Jack Seymour categorizes Harris’ model as the faith community approach among the three approaches to Christina learning he suggests: the faith community, instructional, and missional approaches. Jack L. Seymour, Teaching the Way of Jesus: Educating Christians for Faithful Living (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2014), 71. 44 The Presbyterian Church of Korea Education Department, The Curriculum Theory Manual, 77–78. 45 The Presbyterian Church of Korea Education Department, The Curriculum Theory Manual, 103, 169.

19 on the faith community approach seems to weaken the role of didache, while emphasizing other modes of the educational ministry, such as diakonia and leiturgia. Although the search for an alternative to the schooling paradigm is meant to consider not only the whole faith community as a curriculum in a broad sense, but also to transform a traditional style of didache from indoctrination or instruction to participatory, reflective, and creative ways of teaching/learning, the latter is not taken seriously in the Korean Protestant church. Such a narrow understanding of didache is not adequate for encouraging Korean participants, who are living in complicated historical, sociocultural, and academic contexts, to reflect critically on their lives and lived faith and connect these with the Christian stories. Furthermore, and related to the age-segregated structure, children are rarely invited to such communal reflective pedagogical events, even if there are any. While in the North American context this problem has arisen in a debate in the

Christian education discipline between two major approaches, i.e., the socialization/enculturation and critical approaches,46 the Korean Protestant church does not yet take the issue seriously.

In short, these two issues have not only reinforced segregation between the generations in learning and growing together in faith, but have also meant a failure to develop an integrative educational approach for intergenerational congregations. These failures have also led congregations to struggle with empowering both children and adults to play a role in coming together as the one body of Christ, and in conducting transformative educational ministry in

Korean society. Instead people experience a disconnect within faith communities—both historically and ideologically—and focus on church growth and management, thereby losing their young disciples.

46 Richard R. Osmer, The Teaching Ministry of Congregations (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 118.

Given the problems found in Korean congregations with children, an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education is required, both in theory and practice. However, despite the need for such an approach, there are only a few studies on intergenerational Christian education, and most of these are from the western context. There are even less with a focus on integrative intergenerational education with children. Intergenerational Christian education for

Korean congregations with children should be about encouraging people of all ages to learn from each other and grow together through relational and reflective practices.

2. Thesis Statement

This dissertation explores an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children. In proposing such a constructive approach, this thesis employs theologies of children and studies in children’s spiritual cognition as its critical lenses. Theologies of children provide insights into the way children as relational, but vulnerable beings, can participate in intergenerational Christian education as significant agents, as well as channels of mutual love and theological reflection. Recent studies of children’s spiritual cognition shed light on children’s capabilities for spiritual thinking and meaning making. In light of these studies, this dissertation critically examines intergenerational education theories, and not only encourages children’s participation and reflection, but also reconsiders the crucial role of critical reflection in socialization-oriented congregational education.

I thus propose a relational-reflective approach to intergenerational Christian education as an alternative approach for Korean congregations with children that helps people of all ages become active learners and agents in the faith community, through welcoming each other, reflecting on their lived faith critically, and mutually empowering one another to live

21 transformative lives and engage in prophetic work together in the world. As a result of understanding intergenerational Christian education as an interactive formational practice between generations, which is rooted in the Christian stories and vision, I argue that such education should move beyond being to and for children and towards being with and by children, by appreciating their presence and agency through the sort of approach that harmonizes socialization and critical reflection. I advocate an intergenerational pedagogy of hospitality, of story interweaving, and of collaboration, which can empower people of all ages to learn and grow together, and which also revitalizes communities of faith and the wider community.

3. Methodology

This dissertation takes an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education for Korean Presbyterian congregations with children by examining Christian educational theories in light of theologies of childhood and studies of children’s spirituality and spiritual cognition.

The methodology behind this study is library research, through which I examine relevant literature from the fields of Christian education, theology, and the developmental sciences. While this dissertation takes a theory-practice form, it nevertheless considers lived Christian faith at the outset, and does not simply offer an applied study, in which it is considered a virtue if it is suggested a theory be applied as a possible practice. By considering the dialogical relationship between Korean congregations and Christian educational and social scientific theories, this study is located in the broader academic field of practical theology.47 This dissertation is thus undertaken in interdisciplinary, and constructive ways.

47 Richard R. Osmer, Practical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008), 11–29.

The approach is also contextual. As described above, Korean society and multigenerational Korean congregations are set in a historical and sociocultural context, from which critical reflection and practical pedagogical suggestions follow. In taking an interdisciplinary approach I seek to broaden insight into lived Christian experiences, as well as deepen understanding of who we are, what and how we learn, and how we should live and practice as Christians. A creative and critical dialogue is attempted between theories of Christian education and studies of children, in both theology and the social sciences. I choose the faith community/enculturation approach and examine its distinctiveness as an intergenerational approach to Christian education for Korean congregations with children. I pay attention to children’s locus and agency in the faith community through theology (Jensen and

McLemore/Couture); children’s developmental capability for spiritual thinking through the social sciences (Hyde and Johnson/Boyatizs); and critical reflection in Christian education from the theory of Groome. Finally, this dissertation is constructive. By constructive I mean that it proposes an integrated approach to intergenerational Christian education in both theory and practice, by examining the contributions and limitations of prior theories and synthesizing them in a critical and creative way. Since Christian education does not occur in a vacuum, but in a spiral-shaped dialogue between lived Christian faith and experience and theory,48 the aim of this dissertation is to articulate a constructive approach to intergenerational Christian education that is creative and dialogical.

4. Defining Key Terms

48 I agree with Richard Osmer who suggests that “it is helpful to think of practical theological interpretation as more like a spiral than a circle. It constantly circles back to tasks that have already been explored.” Osmer, Practical Theology, 11.

It is helpful at the outset to introduce three key terms used throughout my thesis and to clarify their meanings: intergenerationality, socialization/enculturation, and critical reflection.

While the meaning of these terms varies depending on context and the disciplines in which they appear, some general understanding and background is needed of the way they will be used to elucidate my thesis.

4.1. Intergenerationality

Intergenerationality is a concept that has been increasingly employed in various disciplines to explain complex relational dynamics between two or more generations. As seen in the compound term itself, it requires more than a single theoretical lens to examine its complex nature, i.e., it needs to be understood sociologically, psychologically, theologically and pedagogically. In this study of intergenerational Christian education in the Korean context, intergenerationality needs to be understood in three ways: as defining a generational category

(“generation”), in its relational aspect (“inter”), and as a perspectival issue with reference to children and childhood.

Generation. The term generation generally refers to a group of people and has multiple biological, sociocultural and historical aspects. In this dissertation the term is used to cover both life-stage and age cohort but focuses explicitly on the developmental aspect of children’s agency and spiritual cognition in intergenerational pedagogy. I do not ignore the historical and sociocultural experiences (and lived faith) of Korean congregations, especially those of children; for example, their lives and lived faith in a society strongly influenced by authoritarian

Confucianism, social invisibility, and enormous academic burdens and infrequent opportunities to reflectively link their lives with the Christian stories. Practicing and theorizing about

24 intergenerational Christian education in a particular context, e.g., Korean society, should involve not only epistemological issues according to participants’ developmental capacities, but should also encompass their lived faith and experiences. In this regard, historical and sociocultural experiences are taken seriously in the background, both as a cause of generational segregation, and as subject matter, which people of all ages reflect upon, and thereby connect with their lived faith.

Inter. The modifier “inter” acknowledges a relational aspect of intergenerational interactions and pedagogy. In particular, the term intergenerational needs to be distinguished from other terms that express cross-age relations. For example, Christian educator James White proposes to use the terms intergenerational and multigenerational interchangeably, both meaning three or more generations in a faith-transmitting dynamic in intergenerational religious education,49 whereas Holly Allen and Christine Ross distinguish clearly between the two concepts. They argue that the term intergenerational includes in itself “a commitment to a philosophy of ministry that intentionally brought various generations together in meaningful dialogue,” whereas the term multigenerational may mean that the church honors and has programs for all generations, but without any intentional cross-age interactions. In this case, a multigenerational approach draws on generational theory to understand each generation within one community rather than pursue intentional interaction between generations.50 Following Allen

49 White investigates terms related to intergenerational interactions in a way that resembles treatment of human ecological systems. The human ecological systems theory, developed by developmentalist Urie Bronfenbrenner, is a theory that explains the human developmental process being formed by the interaction between an individual and her environment. James W. White, Intergenerational Religious Education: Models, Theory, and Prescription for Interage Life and Learning in the Faith Community (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1998), 20–25. 50 Holly C. Allen and Christine L. Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation: Bringing the Whole Church Together in Ministry, Community and Worship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 19–20.

25 and Ross, in this study the meaning of genuine intergenerationality refers to intentionally interactive and interdependent relationships between two or more generations.

Perspectival issue. Intergenerationality does not always work fairly with all ages, especially children, because of a sociological and developmental premise that childhood is a preparatory phase, whereas adults (and youth) are recognized as active participants in social life.

In many cases in the intergenerational literature, including that concerning Christian education, children are often marginalized, because it is assumed that they are not sufficiently mature and capable of participating in some aspects of community life. As feminist practical theologians point out, children can be understood only by considering generational relations with other positions (e.g. adulthood). For this reason, emancipating their lives and faith, and appreciating their agency in the faith community should be taken seriously.51 Thus while children encounter similar experiences in their Protestant congregations and their Christian education, they rarely have the opportunity to reflect and share their lived faith with other generations. This is the way

Korean children experience social events in their personal and communal lives, just as Korean adult generations did in their own specific historical and sociocultural contexts when they were young.

Concerning references to children in this dissertation, three other points need to be briefly noted. First, I mainly use the plural form “children,” rather than the singular “child,” because I choose to focus on their commonality, which is experienced in the same historical and sociocultural context. This implies not only their developmental characteristics but also their common experiences as cohort in the Korean context. Second, when it comes to age range, I am referring to children between kindergarten and grade six, with a similar sociocultural experience

51 Bonnie Miller-McLemore, Let the Children Come: Reimagining Childhood from a Christian Perspective (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003), xxiii-xxiv; Mercer, Welcoming Children, 16–17.

26 both in Korean society and in their congregations, as described above. I thus focus not only on their developmental levels and capabilities, but also their sociocultural and existential experiences, which form the locus of their lived faith. Third, the terms children and childhood are basically understood in light of a particular cultural context, which is Korean society and congregations, where children (and adults) go through specific historical, sociocultural, and pedagogical experiences that influence their Christian identity and vocation.

4.2. Socialization / Enculturation

The terms socialization and enculturation are generally used interchangeably by Christian educators advocating the faith community approach. In a broad sense, socialization is the process by which a group or society shapes its self-identity, lifestyle, values, and worldviews,52 while enculturation is a term used in cultural anthropology to indicate the process through which children first internalize culture, a process that is followed by acculturation and formation. In

Christian education, these terms are preferred by those who emphasize the crucial role of the faith community as both curriculum and teacher in faith formation.

Such a reciprocal notion of enculturation is crucial in intergenerational Christian identification, in terms of identifying people of all ages as active agents and learners in sharing and transmitting faith. In this sense, I follow the interactive meaning of enculturation to broadly refer to the formative actions and practices in the faith community and use the terms socialization and enculturation interchangeably throughout.

52 George Thomas Kurian, and Mark A. Lamport, eds., Encyclopedia of Christian Education (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), s.v. “Transformation and Socialization, Interaction of.”

4.3. Critical Reflection

Critical reflection is a cognitive activity through which one expresses, analyzes, and reassesses one’s experience and makes meanings and decisions. In education and learning theories, the term is generally understood as a process of discernment or meaning-making in one’s lived experience. For Freire, critical reflection is critical analysis of experience linked with action upon the world to transform it and is a reflection that takes place through dialogical pedagogy.

In this study, critical reflection is understood in a broad sense to refer to the “reflective pedagogical process” as a whole in congregational teaching and learning events. For this reason,

Thomas Groome’s version of critical reflection comes closer to the proposal I present in this dissertation. It is positive, creative reflection on one’s life and lived faith inside and outside the congregation, linked with Christian stories, symbols, beliefs, and worldviews through dialogical

Christian pedagogy.

5. A Structural Outline

This dissertation consists of five chapters plus an introduction. The introduction has outlined the sociocultural context in which Korean congregations and their intergenerational

Christian education practices are located.

Chapter one provides a biblical and theological understanding of intergenerationality, specifically examining three biblical metaphors: one body, prophets, and radical welcoming. It then moves to a theological discussion about children in order to examine children’s locus and agency in the intergenerational community of faith, giving special attention to the constructive

28 view of David Jensen and the feminist practical theological views of Bonnie Miller-McLemore and Pamela Couture.

Chapter two explores recent studies on children’s spiritual cognition. Here I pay special attention to two studies: one is Brendan Hyde’s phenomenological research on children’s spirituality, and another is a cognitive-cultural approach to children’s spiritual cognitive development by Carl Johnson and Chris Boyatzis. Along with chapter one, this chapter provides fresh insight into children’s participation and agency in congregational learning, which is then examined in chapters three and four.

Chapter three reviews intergenerational Christian education theories developed in North

America since the 1970s. Here I critically examine the faith community/enculturation approaches of C. Ellis Nelson, John H. Westerhoff III, and Charles Foster, paying special attention to their understanding of intergenerational education and children’s location and participation. Also, I review three contemporary intergenerational Christian education approaches developed since

James White’s intergenerational religious education model, employing the same criteria that I used for the faith community approach.

In the fourth chapter I reconsider the role of critical reflection in intergenerational

Christian education with children. Here I take a close look at Thomas Groome’s understanding of critical reflection in his dialogical approach of shared Christian praxis, as well as in his recent interest in the total community catechesis, examining how he explains children’s participation therein. From a dialogue between issues of children’s being and agency in the faith community

(chapter one) and children’s spiritual cognition (chapter two), I argue for children’s participation and agency in the reflective process of intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations.

Finally, chapter five proposes a relational-reflective approach to intergenerational

Christian education for Korean congregations with children, and integrates the previous chapters.

Bringing back the biblical metaphors of intergenerationality examined in chapter one, I propose an integrated model of intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children. In this model, I suggest three pedagogical practices as methods of intergenerational

Christian education: the practices of hospitality, story-interweaving, and collaboration.

Chapter 1 Biblical and Theological Understanding of Intergenerationality

This chapter offers a biblical and theological understanding of intergenerationality in

Christian education, with a particular focus on children. I first reach a biblical understanding of the concept of intergenerationality by drawing upon three biblical metaphors. I then examine important intergenerational themes in relation to children, i.e., children’s being, their mutuality, and their agency in the faith community. I do this by paying special attention to two perspectives on the theology of children from constructive and feminist practical theology respectively.

1. Biblical Metaphors of Intergenerationality

The concept of intergenerationality is expressed in the Scripture in various ways. Indeed, many phrases and metaphors are used to present the intergeneration character of the faith community. My thesis is that people of all ages, who are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, are called as one body in Christ to welcome and love one another with hospitality, to grow and participate together in prophetic activity in the Spirit, and to work together as collaborators for the reign of God. To advance my thesis, in this present section I explore three different sets of biblical material to reach a working definition of intergenerationality in Christian education. The first biblical metaphor for intergenerationality is that of the one body of Christ, which means that people of all ages, who are reconciled to God through Christ, are called as one body, a body that overcomes segregation and respects differences, and has a special care in the Spirit for the least among them. The second image is an eschatological vision in which people of all ages receive the outpouring of the Spirit and carry out prophetic functions by envisioning and proclaiming

God’s justice and salvation. The third image is found in the Jesus’ action of welcoming children to the faith community in order to teach the disciples to practice a radical welcome of the least and to subvert relationships in the intergenerational faith community under the new order of

God’s reign.

1.1. One Body in Christ (Rom 12:3–4; 1 Cor 12:12–27; Eph 2:13–16)

The first biblical metaphor of intergenerationality is the one body in Christ. This organic metaphor appears several times in Paul’s Epistles to emphasize the unity of the faith community through the Spirit in Christ. The concern for one body in Christ is experienced and emphasized in faith communities from the Pentecostal event onwards, as described in Luke-Acts which tells of the birth of the early Christian church. Empowered by the Spirit of Christ, individuals who have been segregated by various differences of race, class, and age, come to build a community of believers as one body in Christ, bringing people of all ages together, sharing in breaking bread, learning and worshiping together, and having the goodwill of all the people in the wider community (Acts 2:37–47).1 Considering this experience of oneness through the Spirit in Christ,

Paul argues in Galatians—one of his earliest epistles—that any obstacle that segregates the faith community such as race, sex, and class has been removed by Christ: “There is no longer Jew or

Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).2 This emphasis on oneness in Christ is also well illustrated through the body metaphor in Paul’s other epistles, including Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians, which extends to intergenerationality in the faith community.

1 Aaron Kuecker, The Spirit and the “Other”: Social Identity, Ethnicity, and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 18–21. 2 All biblical passages in this study are quoted from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

First of all, in the letter to the Romans, Paul provides an organic metaphor of “body” for the new Christian life and order of the faith communities: “For as in one body (ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι) we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another” (Rom. 12:4–5). Paul’s understanding of the faith community as the one body of Christ is deeply rooted in God’s salvific work through Christ, that is, the gospel, which is the central theme of Romans.3 Proclaiming

God’s love, which brings those who were separated from God to participate in the renewed relationship of love and faith, Paul exhorts the Roman community to practice oneness and mutual love by drawing upon the body metaphor (Rom. 12:4–5). The Romans were a community of people with various spiritual gifts and functions as well as different life situations. Paul clearly recognizes both the particularity of each Christian and the diversity of their spiritual functions in the community. One of the important points here is that Paul regards individual Christians as

“members” of the human body, not just as parts with a mechanical function.4 And these many members in one body can be united only in Christ, as Paul emphasizes throughout Romans. The metaphor of one body in Christ plays a crucial role in emphasizing the unity of the faith community throughout Romans 12.

To examine the connection to intergenerationality, it is helpful to consider the location of the metaphor in relation to its textual structure. Romans 12:4–5, which contains the body metaphor, follows right after Paul’s claim of the transformed Christian life (12:1–2), which is the main theme of his moral exhortations (12:1–15:13): “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies (σώματα) as a living sacrifice, holy and

3 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 29. 4 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 762.

33 acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship… [B]e transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:1,2). Using the noun σώμα three times in the beginning of his ethical exhortations, Paul connects embodied worship, which is the transformed Christian life (Rom.

12:2), with harmonized relationships in the faith communities: through presenting their bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1), and through living as the one body (Rom. 12:4–5).

Meanwhile, between verses 1–2 and 4–5, in verse 3 Paul provides the Romans with a significant criterion for building one body in Christ, that is, to think humbly of themselves:5 “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgement (εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῑν), each according to the measure of faith (μέτρον πίστεως) that God has assigned” (Rom. 12:3). Paul argues that everyone should not think more of themselves than they should, but should think about themselves in relation to others. While Paul does not specify everyone, I do not find clear evidence that Paul’s exhortations are not for all Christians in the faith community, or that some

Christians are excepted from the one body because of their ages or different developmental capabilities. If one can say that thinking humbly of oneself is an ethical exhortation for people of all ages in the faith community, one may then ask what Paul means by “according to the measure of faith.” Frank Matera suggests that at least two interpretations are possible: 1) “faith” as the act of believing and then “measure” as how much of this gift of believing one has received; or 2)

“faith” as the content of what is believed and “measure” as a norm, meaning that “each one is to think in accord with the norm of what is to be believed.”6 Matera prefers the latter because “it

5 Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 285. 6 Matera, Romans, 289.

34 provides the Romans with a more objective norm for thinking about themselves in relation to one another.”7 If one follows Matera’s argument, it is possible to claim that people of all ages in the faith community need to focus on respect and love for each other, regardless of age and spiritual gifts. Or, if one follows the first interpretation, which is supported by other reliable commentators as Matera recognizes, it is also possible to claim that everyone, including adults and children, can make spiritual contributions to the faith community as one body in Christ

“according to the measure of faith” in various ways.

Paul’s organic metaphor of one body is also employed in a realistic way in his first letter to the Corinthian congregations. Appealing to the Corinthian congregations to be united in the same mind and the same purpose (1 Cor. 1:10), Paul draws on the metaphor of body to illustrate how the faith community is connected to Christ as well as to one another through being united as one body: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. … Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” (1 Cor. 12:12–13, 27). Concerning the issue of spiritual gifts, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 12–14, that Christians are all baptized into one body in the one Spirit, not losing their unique spiritual functions and gifts, just like body parts belonging to a body. Being connected in Christ (1 Cor. 12:12) as well as to Christ, who is the head of the body (Col. 1:18), they are then called to build a new community transcending not only spiritual and intellectual differences but also external obstacles, including social and economic status (11:22), sex (11:11–12), and possibly age. As Craig Keener points out, if they

7 Matera, Romans, 289.

35 treat members according to worldly status rather than God’s perspective, they are dishonouring

Christ’s own body.8

There is an asymmetrical aspect to relationships in the faith community as one body of

Christ in terms of caring for the least or the marginalized, however. Such a Christ-centred community of caring has a responsibility to care for one another, especially for the weaker ones.

Paul claims: “[T]he members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect” (1 Cor. 12:22–23). His claim echoes Jesus’ teaching that “whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me” (Mark 9:37).

However, this asymmetrical relationship of care does not make the least or the marginalized passive recipients, but empowers the whole community to participate in mutual care and love for one another: “But God has so arranged the body giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another (1 Cor. 12:24b–25, italics added). And what enables the faith community to become one body of Christ against segregations and factions is “love,” which is the greatest spiritual gift (1 Cor. 13:1–13, especially v.13) and is only practiced when each member is connected to Christ who is the source of love.

In Ephesians, Paul sheds light on a concrete intergenerational case seen from the perspective of the one body. In 5:21–6:9, Paul provides a “household code” for congregants, who are called to build new relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and servants, as “members of the household of God.” Paul reminds the Ephesian

8 Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 99.

36 congregations that all people of the faith community, regardless of race, class, and age, are invited to be the one body through Jesus who died on the cross, as well as members of “the household of God” (οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ), and not strangers and aliens anymore (Eph. 2:11–22). For

Paul, the intergenerational relationship between parents and children, like other relationships, means not so much a peaceful, quarrel-free relationship between pre-teenagers and their parents,

(or, as in the Asian context, Confucian obedience and respect in the adult-child relationship) as the embodiment of the new Christian faith. As Frank Thielman puts it, this relationship needs to be understood in light of “the love of God and the love of Christ,” which “provide the models for individuals within the church to follow in their relationships with one another.”9 Thielman insists that the central principle in the communal life of the believing household is “mutual submission” in Christ, or as Paul claims, “submitting (ὑποτασσόμενοι) to each other in the fear of Christ”

(Eph. 5:21, Thielman’s translation. Italics original).10 Although Ephesians 6:1–4 contains issues for discussion, such as children’s obedience to and honouring of parents and adults (Eph. 6:1–3) and the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), one may nevertheless conclude of

Paul’s exhortation that this “household code” is a teaching for the congregants to practice mutual submission in intergenerational relationships. One should not ignore the context in which Paul articulates his theology of oneness: i.e., actual congregations that share a concern about overcoming factionalism and restoring new order in the faith community in a first-century

Roman imperial society.11 Allan Harkness points out that what Paul affirms is that “distinctions

9 Frank Thielman, Ephesians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 322. 10 Thielman, Ephesians, 365. Thielman argues that the phrase “submitting to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21) functions “as a transition from the previous section on corporate worship to the new section on submission and as a heading over the new section, indicating its primary concern—submission to one another in the household.” 11 Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 2007), 18.

37 of age, sex, and social standing are secondary to one’s membership in the faith community and the associated mutual interdependence implied by the membership.”12 In other words, Paul hopes all members of “the household of God” will move beyond the status quo maintained in the society, as well as become Christian communities geared toward a new order appropriate to the intergenerational community of faith through Christ.

Stretching Paul’s emphasis on oneness in Christ to the discussion on intergenerationality reveals what an intergenerational faith community should look like, with people of all ages as one body in Christ respecting the differences among the generations and overcoming segregation by being connected to Christ in love. Furthermore, in such a loving community, not only will adult members care for and guide the least and the marginalized, but young people and the elderly, who seem to be the least and less presentable, also care for and respect one another, teaching and learning together as members of the household of God.

1.2. People of All Ages as Prophets (Joel 2:28–32; Acts 2:1–42)

The second image of intergenerationality is found in the eschatological vision of Joel 2.

From the beginning of his prophesies, Joel announces God’s judgement on human sins to all generations in Judah (Joel 1:2–3, 14): “Here this, O elders, give ear, all inhabitants of the land!

Has such a thing happened in your days, or in the days of your ancestors? Tell your children of it, and let your children tell their children, and their children another generation” (1:2–3). Before the Day of Judgement, all the people of Judah, from the aged to infants, are called by God to repent and be sanctified: “Yet even now, says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with

12 Allan G. Harkness, “Intergenerationality: Biblical and Theological Foundations,” Christian Education Journal 9, no. 1 (2012): 125.

38 fasting, with weeping, and with mourning… [G]ather the people. Sanctify the congregation; assemble the aged; Gather the children, even infants at the breast” (2:12, 16a). In gathering and being sanctified before God, no exception is given to anyone, from the young children to the aged. Also, if they faithfully respond to God’s calling, repenting their disobedience, they will be forgiven, but will also realize that God is the One who is faithful in covenant with them and is the only One to be worshipped by people of all ages (2:12–27).

After the announcement of the Day of Judgement, Joel prophesies the Holy Spirit will be poured on all flesh if and when they repent and are prepared to receive the Spirit: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions” (Joel 2:28). Writing of this eschatological vision, some biblical scholars suggests it refers to the existence of prophets who receive the outpouring of the Spirit. For example, Hans

Walter Wolff translates this verse with a focus on a prophetic existence as follows: “Your sons and your daughters will become prophets.”13 Understanding the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh as a form of empowerment, and as part of God’s establishment of new, restorative life,

Wolff argues that such empowerment through prophesying, dreams and visions enables people to build a restored relationship with God as well as with one another in an intergenerational faith community that no longer privileges certain individuals.14 Meanwhile others argue that this eschatological vision shows that the Spirit will allow God’s people of all ages to carry out prophetic functions in the faith community for the fulfillment of God’s justice and salvation.

According to James Nogalski, a prophetic function is the act of communicating for and with

13 Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, trans. Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow, ed. S. Dean McBride, Jr. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 56. 14 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 66-67. See also Elizabeth Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 149.

God.15 Such a function also includes envisioning and discerning God’s revelation, which is given mainly through the Christian stories, as well as proclaiming and witnessing to what people have envisioned and discerned. When the prophetic function is considered in this way, what becomes important about the eschatological vision is that people of all ages in the faith community are called to carry out such a function in the Spirit. This eschatological vision of all people participating in the prophetic function is more radical and active than the notion of people of all ages merely recovering and listening to God’s laws and Word (Neh. 10:28–29; Amos 8:11–13).16

Nogalski argues that “given the patriarchal structures of the time this promise to include women, children, and slaves, as well as men and elders, in the work of YHWH is unparalleled in Old

Testament texts.”17 He goes on to say that in such a new relationship between God and God’s people, all people function as prophets.18 In either case, in the eschatological vision of Joel people of all ages will be called to be prophets for God’s justice and salvation when the Spirit is poured upon them.

The fulfillment of God’s promise began to take place in the early churches after the ascension of Christ. In Acts 2:17–21, the prophesy of Joel is restated in Peter’s sermon right after the Holy Spirit is poured out on the people who are gathered in one place waiting for what Jesus has promised them. Through the Holy Spirit, Peter reminds people of what Joel prophesied,

15 James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 238. 16 These passages may be also read in relation to intergenerationality, although here I focus only on the prophetic functions of people of all ages. Cf. Nehemiah 10:28–29: “The rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, the temple servants, and all who have separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to adhere to the law of God, their wives, their sons, their daughters, all who have knowledge and understanding, join with their kin, their nobles, and enter into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord and his ordinances and his statutes.” See also Amos 8:11, 13 “The time is surely coming, says the Lord God, when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. … In that day the beautiful young women and the young men shall faint for thirst.” 17 Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve, 237. 18 Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve, 237.

40 reflects on its meaning for them, and shares what he witnessed in Jesus Christ: “The Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witness” (2:32). On that day Peter, who is filled with the Spirit, carries on prophetic functions as a prophet,19 but also encourages people of all ages to repent and receive the Spirit who empowers God’s agents for their mission:20 “For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him”

(2:39, italics added). In this invitation, we find a model of the empowered faith community for people of all ages. The focus of both the prophesy of Joel as well as of Peter’s sermon is God’s justice and salvation, which is ultimately fulfilled through Jesus Christ who has been risen by

God (2:32). On the side of the faith community, people of all ages are called as prophets to witness to this fulfillment of God’s salvation through Christ to the world, just as Peter does.

Also, the intergenerational faith community is called to be a genuine community, such that people of all ages welcome one another with hospitality, reflect on the Christian stories, and worship and work together for the goodness of the reign of God (2:42–47).

1.3. “Let the Children Come to Me”: Radical Welcome (Mark 9:33–37; 10:13–16)

The third, and final, biblical image of intergenerationality is found in the synoptic

Gospels where Jesus teaches a subversive relationship in the reign of God by welcoming children into the intergenerational faith community.21 When Jesus is teaching people, some bring little

19 John F. A. Sawyer, Prophecy and the Biblical Prophets, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 146. 20 Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 873. 21 In this study, I draw on the Markan narratives as main texts because they illustrate well a subversive characteristic and ethics of God’s reign in comparison with Matthew and Luke. Also, among the synoptic Gospels, only Mark provides a concrete scene of Jesus welcoming children into the faith community. In a similar vein, Judith M. Gundry and Joyce Mercer both pay attention to the gospel of Mark in their childhood studies. The former argues that Mark depicts Jesus as “overcoming the religious and cultural obstacles to embracing children’s full and equal participation in the eschatological reign of God,” while the latter attempts to find in the Markan stories “a counter-

41 children (παιδία) to him to be touched by him for a blessing. But the disciples forbid them coming to Jesus for reasons that are unclear, probably either because of their social and religious immaturity or because they think children are disruptive and cause a distraction from Jesus’ teaching and ministry.22 Some also suggest that it is the intention of Mark to contrast Jesus’ welcome against the background of Jewish debate about rank in the coming kingdom and various widespread views on seniority in antiquity.23 In either case, it is clear that the children are not welcomed by the disciples. This rebuke is not particularly striking, because in other contexts in which Jesus teaches people there are probably children and women who are marginalized behind the scene, especially in teaching settings: e.g., feeding the five thousand (Matt. 14:13–21; cf.

John 6:1–14).24 Although it is not hard to imagine that it might have been mostly mothers bringing the children to Jesus, I agree with Hans-Ruedi Weber who argues that they also might have come with their fathers, or more probably with their elder brothers and sisters.25

When Jesus sees this, he is indignant and say to the disciples, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (Mark

10:14). Indeed, this teaching is not given to little children or their companions, but to the disciples as well as to the faith community that reads this narrative: “Whoever does not receive

narrative” of children and women in the dominant discourse of the imperial regime. See Judith M. Gundry, “Children in the Gospel of Mark, with Special Attention to Jesus’ Blessing of the Children (Mark 10:13–16) and the Purpose of Mark,” in The Child in the Bible, ed. Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008): 143–176; Joyce A. Mercer, Welcoming Children: A Practical Theology of Childhood (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005), esp. chap. 2. 22 Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, World Biblical Commentary 34B (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 93. 23 Gundry, “Children in the Gospel of Mark,” 164. Gundry argues that an assumption that Mark is portraying the disciples simply as uncaring toward or dismissive of children is “too flat a view of children for Mark’s social context.” 24 Among the four Gospels, only Matthew excludes women and children from the five thousand. Interestingly, John writes of a boy who brings two fish and five loaves of bread to Jesus. This shows that Jesus often taught people of various ages. 25 Hans-Ruedi Weber, Jesus and the Children: Biblical Resources for Study and Preaching (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1979), 16.

42 the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15). I suggest that this act of

Jesus can be called “radical welcome” for two reasons. First, Jesus astonishingly links the act of welcoming little children into the faith community with the qualification for belonging to the reign of God. In other words, radical welcome is directly related to our Christian identity: who we are, whose we are, and with whom we are. Such welcoming is radical enough to challenge the status quo in the faith community, which often wants to remain a closed, homogeneous group. Second, welcoming children in this way is also radical because it creates a secure space for people of all ages to learn from each other, especially from the marginalized, through the teaching of God’s reign. Judith M. Gundry describes this radical welcome as the “childlikeness of the Kingdom of God” in which we need to go from “welcoming children” to “becoming like a child” in radical dependence on God who takes care of all the children of God.26 Welcoming children is a way of practicing the childlikeness of God’s reign, where the intergenerational faith community becomes a community that not only gathers different generations into one place but welcomes and becomes the reign of God as they welcome and become like the weakest with deep love and hospitality.

Further, in Mark 9:33–37, Jesus teaches the disciples through a child to seek subversive relationships in the faith community as part of the new order of God’s reign. On their way to

Capernaum the disciples have argued with one another over who is the greatest. When Jesus asks what has made them argue so seriously, no one answers him, probably because they already realize they have done something wrong. In the house (οἰκίᾳ) where Jesus and his disciples stay, he puts a little child (παιδίον) in the midst (ἐν μέσῳ) of the twelve disciples (9:35–36), a male- adult-centered group, and teaches them by taking the child in his arms: “Whoever welcomes one

26 Gundry, “Children in the Gospel of Mark,” 164-172.

43 such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me” (Mark 9:37; also see Matt. 18:2, 5; Luke 9:46–48). While Luke describes Jesus putting the little child by his side, both Mark and Matthew write that he put it “in the midst” of the disciples, and in the Markan narrative he even takes the child in his arms. Furthermore, in the

Markan narrative, the child is not even assumed to be with the group until Jesus brings and sets the child in their midst. When he dares to welcome the child to the disciple’s community and teaches them to be “last of all and servant of all,” the house becomes not only a place to stay with a child among disciples obsessed with a hierarchical order, but also an embodied model of the household of God (οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ) where people of all ages practice subversive relationships appropriate to the reign of God.

In the Markan narrative the teaching/learning role is radically reversed in an educational setting, as a homogeneous group are challenged to engage as an intergenerational one. Weber calls this pedagogical style “the reversal of teaching.” Paying attention to the historical context, which was that of both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish worlds, he points out that teaching was usually “one-way,” that is, from the adults towards the children.27 Certainly in the Markan narrative, the little child does not directly teach the disciples; the Teacher in that situation is

Jesus. It is not hard to imagine that when Jesus puts the child in the midst of the disciples, he is also in their midst when taking it by his arms! As Weber points out, what Jesus intends to teach is not something about the nature of children but about the nature of God.28 That is, welcoming

Jesus, as well as God who sends Jesus to the faith community, should be done in such a way that we practice subversive relationships in welcoming the least of the community and becoming last of all and servants of all. In this way, the intergenerational faith community can provide

27 Weber, Jesus and the Children, 43. 28 Weber, Jesus and the Children, 19.

44 opportunities for people of all ages to practice the new upside-down-order in the midst of power- oriented, adult-centered Christian communities, such as Korean congregations. As Gundry contends, the Markan illustration shows that “children’s social and religious inferiority can no longer justify their marginalization, but instead requires their emulation and devoted service by adult members of Jesus’ ‘family’ of disciples.”29 Given the metaphoric and physical existence of the child in the midst of the faith community, intergenerationality can then be newly defined as relationship characterized by radical welcome and subversiveness, rooted in the new order of the reign of God.

I have examined three biblical metaphors of intergenerationality so as to find a multilayered image for bringing Korean congregations with children, and indeed people of all ages, into a pedagogical journey. While the metaphors provide us with valuable clues for imagining how such intergenerationality might be practiced in Christian education in Korean congregations, we need to scrutinize what is really happening in intergenerational ecclesial education and practice, by asking how the church understands children and whether that understanding encourages intergenerational partnerships and participation, or whether it accelerates and fixes generational segregation and isolation in the faith community. In the next section I thus examine theological views on children and children’s place and agency in intergenerational Christian communities.

2. Why Children? A Rationale for a Theology of Children

29 Gundry, “Children in the Gospel of Mark,” 176.

This section articulates a rationale for my focus on children as part of a constructive understanding of intergenerationality. There are largely two reasons I focus on children and they are pedagogical and theological, which are closely related. Since I already articulated the pedagogical reason in the introduction, i.e., the neglect of children’s place and agency in intergenerational Christian education in Korean congregations, here I focus mainly on the theological reason, which is the devalued and ambivalent views on children found in theology.

2.1. The de Facto Doctrine of Children: Devalued or Ambivalent Views on Children in

Theology

It is not hard to find a discontinuity between the theologies of human beings, of the church and of children in theological discourse in both Western and Eastern culture. Although these theologies are supposed to share a common view of the nature of the human being, and the relationship with God, church, and wider community, each appears to be disconnected, as if they were totally different disciplines. It is odd that even in the theological discourse of the human being (theological anthropology) little attention is paid to children. As Joyce Mercer puts it, this trend of the “disappearance of childhood”30 appears not only inconsistent, but also runs the risk of constructing theologies that reflect the status quo, in which adult-centered institutions rule out other subjects, such as children. Feminist practical theologian, Bonnie Miller-McLemore, echoes

Mercer’s insistence that the devaluation of nurture and care for children and the paucity of child- centered theological anthropology has resulted in isolating not only children from the faith community, but also all responsible adults from theological reflection on the nature of children,

30 Mercer, Welcoming Children, 18–19.

46 their education and formation, and adult responsibilities and duties in relation to children.31 Such theologies also prevent congregations with children from building up genuine faith communities and from encouraging people of all ages to engage in pedagogical practice as active agents and participants. It is not going too far to say that the experience of fragmentation, disconnection, and age-segmentation in faith communities, as well as in Christian education, is largely caused by this fragmented view in theology.

In Children and the Theologians: Clearing the Way for Grace, Berryman argues that in both theology and intergenerational practice in the church, consideration of children has not always been observed and is sometimes resisted. After examining theologies of children from each period in western history, he explains that a reason for the absence of, or resistance to, theological discourses on children is because of the reality of the de facto doctrine of children.32

He argues that this de facto doctrine has four aspects that weigh heavily albeit informally on the church: ambivalence, ambiguity, indifference, and grace.33 Ambivalence means that the church has two conflicting perceptions of children, and sways between a high view that is respectful to, and open to learning from children, and a low view that is dismissive of children and sees them in a narrow way as objects to be taught and purified.34 This dichotomized view confuses and sometimes obscures the best way of understanding and supporting children. Ambiguity refers to an attitude where faith communities understand children in an unclear way based on various, sometimes even contradictory, and unexamined assumptions.35 While these ambiguities are

31 Bonnie Miller-McLemore, “‘Let the Children Come’ Revisited: Contemporary Feminist Theologians on Children,” in The Child in Christian Thought, ed. Marcia J. Bunge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001), 461. 32 Jerome W. Berryman, Children and the Theologians: Clearing the Way for Grace (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2009), 230. 33 Berryman, Children and the Theologians, 200. 34 Berryman, Children and the Theologians, 204. 35 Berryman refers to seven ambiguities the church may have about children using an “ambiguity check- list” which includes developmental (specifying early, middle, late childhood vs. generalizing about the whole

47 largely unresolvable, he holds it is important to recognize that a nuanced awareness of them will prevent unconscious misunderstanding of children by adults. Indifference refers to a lack of interest in, enthusiasm or concern for children.

Against these three approaches, Berryman argues that the faith community needs a renewed perspective on children that is based on grace, since Jesus welcomed children as a means of grace in God’s reign. Here grace indicates “a sense of the faithful maintenance of a relationship and the free gift of affection and mercy.”36 Grace also refers to charm and loveliness, and a sense of favor, kindness, friendship, and service to others.37 While such grace is distinguished from divine grace, Berryman contends that it enables children, as “a means of grace,” to continue to carry the church from one generation to the next, functioning as a bridge of possibility in intergenerational Christian education. To think of children as sacramental beings in this way shifts the emphasis towards grace and away from the church’s prior ambivalence, ambiguity, and indifference. In short, revisiting childhood in theological discussion is necessary for the faith community to implement intergenerational Christian education for people of all ages in a responsible and reciprocal way.

2.2. Revisiting Childhood as Theological Reflection

Marcia Bunge, a contemporary theologian substantially concerned with the meaning and location of children in theology, paints a broad picture of the theological discourse on children

period?), sinfulness (sinful vs. sinless?), contingency (permanence vs. change?), pedagogical (learning vs. teaching?), spiritual (immaturity vs. maturity?), relationship (trouble vs. blessing?) and reference (general vs. specific?) ambiguities. He adds meta-ambiguity to the list as a second level to point out ambiguity over ambiguity (ambiguity conflicts among the seven ambiguities vs. a single unified meaning?). Berryman, Children and the Theologians, 206. 36 Berryman, Children and the Theologians, 213 37 Berryman, Children and the Theologians, 213–214.

48 from Scripture and other Christian sources.38 She claims that the Bible and the Christian tradition have offered various, and even contradictory, views on children and childhood through history.

She argues that these views provide a range of depictions of children from various angles.

According to Bunge, the Christian tradition depicts children in six ways: 1) as gifts of God and sources of joy; 2) as sinful creatures and moral agents; 3) as developing beings who need instruction and guidance; 4) as fully human and made in the image of God; 5) as models of faith and sources of revelation; and 6) as orphans, neighbors, and strangers in need of justice and compassion.39 From among these understandings and in order to see how children can be understood as relational beings, it seems helpful to focus on children as gifts of God and sources of joy, and children as fully human and made in the image of God. By noting these qualities first, it will then be possible to approach other characteristics, such as vulnerability and agency, with the help of other scholars, whose views will be examined in the rest of this work.40

Bunge notes that the Bible and the Christian tradition often depict children as gifts of

God and sources of joy who ultimately come from God and belong to God.41 Many biblical passages speak of children as gifts of God or signs of God’s blessing, and emphasize the joy that children bring to families and communities.42 This notion is closely related to another theme of

38 Bunge has published several books and articles on the theology of children and childhood, and among them, two works she edited herself are remarkable: The Child in Christian Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001) and The Child in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008). 39 Marcia J. Bunge, “Christian Understandings of Children,” in Children, Adults, and Shared Responsibilities: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Perspectives, ed. Marcia J. Bunge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 62–68. 40 I agree when Bunge warns that it is not appropriate to develop one aspect or dimension of the rich understanding of children in the Christian Scripture and tradition and neglect others, thereby narrowing the discourse about who children are and what we owe them. Bunge, “Christian Understanding of Children,” 61. I nevertheless feel it is appropriate to take a small starting point before expanding on this complex issue in the rest of this work. 41 Bunge, “Christian Understandings of Children,” 62. See Gen. 21:6–7; 30:20; 1 Sam. 1:11,19; Ps. 127:3; Luke 1:14; John 16:21. 42 Interestingly, in The Child in Christian Thought, which she edited, Bunge first pays attention to the notion of children as sinful. Since the focus of the edited book is to examine various theological perspectives on

49 children as fully human and created in the image of God. While traditional theological anthropology deals with the imago Dei in general, Bunge points out that the Christian tradition has also viewed infants and children in particular as whole and complete human beings made in the image of God. In other words, like adults, children are worthy of human dignity and respect.43 She says it is important to note that the idea of children as fully human and created in the image of God has sometimes been neglected and distorted in Christianity. Children have been described as “animal,” “beasts,” “pre-rational,” “pre-adults,” “almost human,” “not quite human,” or “on their way to becoming human.”44 Bunge’s view of children as gifts and sources of joy, as well as fully human and created in the image of God, implies that children should be understood in relationship with God and community.

Turning to the other aspect of the nature of children that Bunge highlights: i.e., as both sinful creatures and moral agents, it is important to understand how the presentation of children as sinful is connected to the broken human relationship with God, and vulnerability in God.

While Bunge acknowledges that viewing children as sinful is based on interpretations of the

Bible that can seem to be negative and destructive, she nevertheless asserts that the notion of children as sinful corrects an equally simplistic and dangerous view of children as primarily pure and innocent beings who automatically love God and their neighbors.45 Bunge underscores two related points: the first is the claim that children are “born in a state of sin.” The other is that as children grow up they carry out “actual sins” and are moral agents who bear some degree of responsibility for their actions. She notes that the latter point sometimes becomes distorted if

children throughout history, she discovers just how often the notion of original sin and related issues, such as punishment and baptism in relation to children, are dealt with. Bunge, The Child in Christian Thought, 13–18. 43 Bunge, “Christian Understanding of Children,” 65. 44 Bunge, “Christian Understanding of Children,” 65. 45 Bunge, “Christian Understanding of Children,” 63.

50 theologians incorrectly equate a child’s physical and emotional needs or early developmental state with sin. However, when this notion is used cautiously, with proper knowledge of child development, it can be helpful in strengthening awareness of a child’s growing moral capacity and accountability.46

I have examined a rationale for theologies of children in intergenerationality. I now move to specific topics to deepen the discussion on intergenerationality for Christian education.

3. Children and Intergenerationality

In this section, I pay special attention to three topics—community, mutuality, and agency—to examine how these theological themes can offer meaningful insights for constructing intergenerationality in Christian education. To this end, I draw upon two theological angles that develop theologies of children in remarkable ways: a constructive view by David Jensen, and feminist theological views by Bonnie Miller-McLemore and Pamela Couture. Each of these theologians reflects their own unique viewpoint, with each of the three topics illuminated through these authors’ individual and particular lenses: i.e., children’s being with the faith community (Jensen); and their spiritual and moral agency as well as the mutual relationship of love with parents and other adult members in the faith community (Miller-McLemore and

Couture). As Marcia Bunge suggests, incorporating a complex and multi-faceted theological view on children can lead to a fruitful abundance in our understanding of children as well as all human beings, and to a reshaping and revitalizing of intergenerational Christian education.47

46 Bunge, “Christian Understanding of Children,” 63. On the topic of moral agency, I examine the slightly different view of Bonnie Miller-McLemore in the next section. In my view, Miller-McLemore links children’s agency with the rights of children rather than with moral capacities and accountability as Bunge does. 47 Marcia J. Bunge, “Biblical and Theological Perspectives and Best Practices for Faith Formation,” Understanding Children's Spirituality: Theology, Research, and Practice, ed. Marcia J. Bunge (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 6.

3.1. Children in and with the Faith Community

In Graced Vulnerability, David Jensen provides a constructive theological investigation into the relational nature of children through a special focus on vulnerability. 48 He argues that acknowledging vulnerable differences-in-relation is the essence of human life as well as of the life of the church. Jensen claims that these vulnerable differences-in-relation can be perceived through a theological reflection on childhood. In other words, Jensen develops a theology “of” and “for” childhood. This angle makes his theological-anthropological view of relational vulnerability subversive and advocative. In what follows I focus solely on Jensen’s perceptions of vulnerability and difference in children, which are the main themes in his project.

Childhood as Graced Vulnerability

Jensen’s theological reflection on relational vulnerability begins by defining children as

“full members in the household of God.” He argues that childhood is “an enduring reality saturated with meaning and grace.”49 According to Jensen, children have been romanticized as innocent lambs, demonized as totally depraved, or regarded as “adults in the making.” Such understandings hinder the church from understanding children, not only as “a locus of God’s grace,” but also as partners in God’s covenant and heirs to God’s reign.50 In other words, children are vulnerable not only because of their youth and incompleteness, but also because of our ambivalent understanding and exclusive attitude toward their existence. At times churches have excluded children, both physically and theologically, from “normal” sight and from

48 David H. Jensen, Graced Vulnerability: A Theology of Childhood (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2005). 49 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 11–12. 50 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, xv.

52 ecclesial practices, a mistake Jensen argues causes us to overlook the profound differences among human persons.51 For this reason, paying attention to the vulnerability of children means turning our attention to the difference and otherness in our midst, shedding light on the unique and diverse creatures we are called to be.

Jensen believes that human vulnerability, especially the vulnerability of children, and openness to others, are embedded in human beings. He argues that vulnerability can be correctly understood only in terms of relationship with God and others. For this reason, Jensen investigates the imago Dei, where God reveals Godself as a vulnerable and loving God and as One who created human beings in divine likeness. He claims that “to understand human relationality in the

Christian tradition, one first looks to the pattern of God’s vulnerable love for creation.”52

According to Jensen, the vulnerability of children is portrayed best in the self-giving, self- disclosing God of covenant, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection: “The God of the Bible is not a monad enclosed upon itself, but a God who becomes vulnerable in relation to others, who calls us to live in vulnerability with others.”53 Above all things, the vulnerability of God’s self- revelation culminates in the birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Jensen pays special attention to baby Jesus, who comes into the world “not to ignore the stigma of the vulnerable, but to enflesh it.”54

Given God’s vulnerability-in-love, Jensen redefines the imago Dei as human vulnerability, and difference as the essence of the human being. Vulnerability means not only exposing oneself to possible harm and injury, but also acknowledging a dependence on and connection with others. Jensen emphasizes human vulnerability as a forgotten dimension of the

51 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 10. 52 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, xv. 53 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 15. 54 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 21.

53 imago Dei in two ways. First, each person is uniquely created in God’s image. This means that each one is unique and different by virtue of the grace that makes our different lives possible.

Jensen interprets the creation stories in Genesis as locating human persons within the abundance of creation, while revealing the uniqueness of each individual. Second, this individual difference implies that “vulnerability and openness to others are constitutive of human life in God’s world.”55 Given this understanding, Jensen views children as imago Dei as beings with

“vulnerable difference-in-relation,” that is, as ones who reveal their vulnerability through their difference-in-relation with others.56 This vulnerability is also revealed as a gift to the other. To sum up, the “graced vulnerability” of children, and of all human beings, is not a tragic condition to be avoided or denied but is “a locus of God’s grace.”57

Children in and with the Ekklesia

I now examine how Jensen looks at community in relation to children. He understands the church in relation to children in terms of an ethic of care. Concerning vulnerable differences-in- relation, Jensen argues that “children are not simply on their way to becoming members of the church and society… [but] already are full heirs of the covenant community.”58 He points out that affirming the imago Dei implies the irreplaceable value of each child of God. This affirmation leads to an understanding of human life in all its vast differences. Although children and adults are equal in terms of being created in the image of God, they are not the same. Jensen argues that we are ourselves only in relation to “radically different others,” because the divine life seeks otherness. Given this basic relationality, Jensen suggests seeing all human beings as

55 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 15. 56 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 47. 57 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, xv. 58 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 120.

“God’s children.” He argues that a “theology that neglects children jeopardizes itself and imperils the lives of others, stopping its ears to the suffering of children across the globe, and in the end ignoring the child who lies at the center of Christian faith.”59 Jensen arrives at the conclusion that the metaphor of childhood asks that all of God’s people, including children and adults, participate in peaceful community.

Following on from the relationship he identifies between the church and children, he proposes the need for an ethic of care; an ethic of being vulnerable to all, including the children who suffer from violence and neglect both inside and outside of the church. He argues that engaging with the vulnerability of children, or becoming vulnerable with children, draws the church into “practices of vulnerability and acts of care for children in the midst of the violence that threatens their lives.”60 The church is “called to welcome all children and embody an alternative vision for the world, witnessed in practices of vulnerability central to its sacramental and prophetic life.” It is also called to enact “an ethic of care” for young people, proclaiming a reign where “the powerless have voices, where violence rules no more.”61

3.2. Children and Mutuality

I now turn to feminist practical theological views on two crucial topics, i.e., children’s mutual relationships and children’s agency in the faith community. While Jensen provides helpful insights into the importance of an ethics of care in intergenerational faith communities with children, feminist theologians make the discussion more fruitful, especially when it comes to reciprocal relationships and the agency of children.

59 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, xi. 60 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 102. 61 Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 102.

For this discussion, I draw on Bonnie Miller-MeLemore and Pamela Couture. As a feminist practical theologian, Bonnie Miller-McLemore investigates children and Christian parenting based on her experiences as a mother, theologian, and worker. In Let the Children Come, she uses her feminist practical theological framework to reconstruct a theology of children, with a special focus on the theological understanding of children as a labor of love and as spiritual and moral agents, and on the responsibility of parents and faith communities towards children.

Pamela Couture provides a slightly different view on caring for children, although like Miller-

McLemore, she develops her view from within a practical feminist framework. As a Methodist theologian, Couture places caring for children as a means of grace at the center of her thinking.

In her two books, Seeing Children, Seeing God and Child Poverty, Couture proposes a practical theology of children and poverty, examining child poverty and advocating mercy, piety, and care for those she terms “godchildren.”62

Miller-McLemore: Children and Adults in a Mutual Labor of Love

I first explore how Miller-McLemore understands mutuality between children and adults in the faith community. As part of her practical feminist theological framework, Miller-

McLemore understands mutuality as an ethical aspect of the relationship between adults and children. From a Christian feminist perspective, she argues that children are not just any kind of

“work,” as secular feminists seem to suggest, but a labor of love, evoking unique obligations, intimacies, and transformations, because they are subjects in themselves, capable of their own

62 Pamela D. Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God: A Practical Theology of Children and Poverty (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000); Child Poverty: Love, Justice, and Social Responsibility (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2007).

56 work, love, gifts, and contributions.63 According to Miller-McLemore, contemporary secular feminists redefine children and child-rearing in terms of economically valued labor, politically critical tools, or a fairer reorganization of household labor, based on their personal experience and knowledge of birthing, nursing, and nurturing. However, Miller-McLemore points out that while caritas—a mutuality that includes but does not idealize sacrifice—is fundamental to the

Christian message, few people give much thought to children.64 She admits that creating mutual love with children is not an easy task because those involved in mutuality are not always like- minded. There are inherent limitations, and it is also occasionally impossible to effect mutuality in a labor of love, but nevertheless, mutuality clears “a way for forgiveness and the grace of reconciliation.”65

She points out that we need to recognize the reality of a “transitional hierarchy” as a process toward mutuality. This means “a temporary inequity between persons—whether of power, authority, expertise, responsibility, or maturity—that is moving toward but has not yet arrived at genuine mutuality.”66 She argues that in a transitional hierarchy, the “adult has more authority and (hopefully) life-earned wisdom and maturity, and the child must be allowed greater latitude in self-indulgence.”67 Through life experiments with a range of roles and desires in a protected sphere and in protected relationships, children and youth learn to live with self- assertion and self-aggrandizement as part of their gradual evolution toward a life that brings together self-fulfillment and self-giving as critical interrelated components of Christian love.68

Miller-McLemore notes that we need to avoid two misunderstanding of mutuality in this

63 Bonnie Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come: Reimagining Childhood From a Christian Perspective (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 124. 64 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 126. 65 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 134. 66 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 130. 67 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 131. 68 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 131.

57 asymmetrical relationship. On the one hand, she is wary of an ill-defined use of mutuality, which leads to a naïve, mechanical equity, without recognition of the real developmental differences between adults and children. On the other hand, she distinguishes mutuality from a conservative

Christian view that holds proper parental leadership means clear demonstration of authority of men over women and parents over children.69 While the kind of mutuality Miller-McLemore proposes mainly focuses on the relationship between parents and children, it is possible to extend her ideas to intergenerational faith communities.

Couture: Godchildren as a Means of Grace

Couture argues that children are “a means of grace, a vehicle through which God makes

God’s self known.”70 Here the emphasis of “the means of grace” is given more to the ethical action of caring than the children themselves. Couture, rooted in Wesleyan theology, claims that

“the means of grace” is central to a Wesleyan understanding of religious experience where searching for God is intimately bound up with remembering neighbors, especially those who are vulnerable. By discovering their most vulnerable neighbors, Christians find themselves and find

God.71 For Couture, one of the most vulnerable groups is children living with poverty. She prefers the term “godchildren” to “poor children,” because this former term reminds us that all children are made in the image of God, without any bias caused by economic, political, and cultural conditions.72 By focusing on finding and caring for godchildren, the emphasis of “the means of grace” is also placed on the godchildren through whom God’s grace is revealed.

69 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 77. 70 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 52. 71 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 48. 72 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 50.

Caring for godchildren as a means of grace is a process of two-way finding between God and the godchildren, one through the other and vice versa. To understand this view, we need to look more closely at what Couture means by this. On the one hand, when we find godchildren through God, it means that we try to give our “irrational commitment” or unconditional love to these children who are created in the image of God, believing in the grace of God who created us in the image of God also, and who continues to act in our lives. At the same time, we need to find God through those godchildren who tend to be hidden from sight, but who are present in the world, waiting for us to discover them.73 Couture concludes that “the idea that we are made in the image of God suggests we are made in love and called to live in love.”74

Couture emphasizes the importance of mutuality in caring for godchildren in light of this relationship of love between God, godchildren, and adult caregivers. She refers to the concept of friendship to illuminate a reciprocal relationship of joy, help, and accountability, as John 15:12-

15 tells us.75 Such mutuality incorporates both power and vulnerability.76 When caring for godchildren, entering into their experience is “the deepest kind of friendship that invites the mutuality of power rearrangements and is inextricably bound to our experience of God.”77

Acknowledging the existing power imbalance between adults and godchildren, she believes that a reconstruction of power relations can be made through the deep mutuality of mercy which exists in relations between people who care for one another.78

3.3. Children as Spiritual and Moral Agents

73 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 52-53. 74 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 51. 75 Couture, Child Poverty, 64. 76 Couture, Child Poverty, 64. 77 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 70. 78 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 68.

Of the three theologians highlighted in this work, it is Miller-McLemore who puts the greatest stress on children’s spiritual and moral agency in the faith community. She argues that modern society continues to remove moral and spiritual agency from children. This is because of the redefinition of children as morally and spiritually innocent and the erasure of childhood as a vital religious and moral phase of development.79 According to Miller-McLemore, since the late eighteenth century, children have been defined as morally neutral and innocent, while premodern adults saw children as entering the world bearing the marks of “original sin” associated with pride, self, and will. The burgeoning of the social sciences in the twentieth century accelerated a major shift in the understanding of moral agency and accountability in childhood, from the view of “imperfect children in a fallen world” to the view of “perfectible children in an imperfect world.” Miller-McLemore points out that views of children as innocent robs them of agency. It characterizes them as passive, trivial, and available to adult objectification, exploitation, and abuse, rather than as capable, intelligent, desiring individuals in their own right.80 This phenomenon also results in the loss of religious vocabulary and practices with which to think of children as moral and spiritual beings and agents in the faith community.

Miller-McLemore thus argues that a recovery of children’s agency in Christian communities is needed. In order to recover children’s agency in the faith community, she suggests a Christian view of children as both sinful and gift, as illustrated in the Scripture, a view that was once appreciated but has since been ignored or even twisted in Christian communities.

Miller-McLemore argues that these seemingly opposite views on children as both depraved and gift should be understood as two sides of the same coin. In order to see children as sinful and fallible, she redefines sin as alienation, which is far from the traditional understanding of sin as

79 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 13. 80 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 14, 20.

60 rebellion against God.81 Standing on the side of a more positive treatment of the doctrines of sin and children, Miller-McLemore explores a third possible “intermediary position” between innocence and depravity. It is the position that children are tainted by sin, and yet are capable of having faith and dealing with deep existential worries, as well as having the ability to receive grace.82 This view is a more realistic, less sentimental view of the imperfection of children. She defines this position as follows: children as imperfect, even potentially volatile, in an imperfect, volatile world.83 Recognition of sin goes hand in hand with awareness of grace.84 Finally, by taking sin seriously, Miller-McLemore accords greater significance to the responsibility of adults in parenting and Christian nurture.

In seeing children as gifts, Miller-McLemore argues that we need to recapture the radicalness of the gospel passages where Jesus welcomes children as divine gifts, because this requires change, not only in adult attitudes, but also in the place of children within society.

Cautious of some distorted views, such as those of children as subordinate to parents, and children as products of market-driven thinking,85 Miller-McLemore argues that taking children’s agency seriously can thus help us to see how children can play a responsible role in the relationship with God and the faith community, thereby avoiding twisted and romanticized views that they are merely depraved or wholly innocent.

81 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 60. 82 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 69, 75. Miller-McLemore agrees with two recent interpretations on children as sinful from theologians Martha Stortz and Keith Graber Miller, who suggest that the “non-innocence” found in Augustine and the “complex innocence” in Menno Simons offer a third possibility between innocence and depravity. See Martha Ellen Stortz, “Where or When Was Your Servant Innocent? Augustine on Childhood,” in The Child in Christian Thought, ed. Marcia Bunge (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 84-102; and Keith Graber Miller, “Complex Innocence, Obligatory Nurturance, and Parental Vigilance: ‘The Child’ in the Work of Menno Simons,” in The Child in Christian Thought, 194-226. 83 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 20. 84 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 81. 85 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 84–94.

Miller-McLemore considers children as agents in two ways: they are moral agents and spiritual agents. First, the view of children as moral agents is in terms of their intrinsic physical, material, emotional, and political entitlements, and goes against the view of children as objects.86

By putting the modifier “moral” in front of the term “agents,’ Miller-McLemore indicates that children as full persons need a gradual transition of power that involves receiving responsibility for increasingly greater choices within a range appropriate to their age and situation.87 She argues that this view is enabled when we recognize children as beings who are created in God’s image and who merit the immense respect and empathy all too often unjustly and wrongly denied them.88

Second, Miller-McLemore argues that viewing children as spiritual agents includes seeing them as God’s representatives, possessing the potential for significant impact upon adults.89 While children’s moral agency can be recognized both by Christian and secular communities, their spiritual agency requires wholehearted recognition by Christian parents and communities. Instead of being seen as passive recipients of church teaching, children need to be welcomed as active spiritual participants of the community as ends in themselves.90 In considering children as spiritual agents, Miller-McLemore contends, parents and communities can see them as a source of religious knowledge and revelation as well as seeing parenting and

Christian nurturing as religious practices.91 She suggests we should try to find out “what children are making known” but also “what God might be making known through them.”92

86 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 138–139. 87 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 143. 88 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 140. 89 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 138. 90 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 148. 91 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 149. 92 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 150.

Couture also develops her advocacy of children’s agency based on the notion that children are a means of grace. Couture’s concern about child poverty leads her to not only encourage communal responsibility for the wellbeing of children, but also to think of caring for children as symbols, which means that godchildren are not only beings who need to be loved and cared for, but are also a means of a grace that is revealed through caring for them. For Couture, taking child poverty seriously in the faith community does not mean merely emphasizing the communal responsibility to take good care of children in need and overcome neglect and indifference towards their well-being. She urges instead that having a deep concern about child poverty in the faith community requires the transformative action of seeing children as sacramental in terms of their agency.

So far, I have engaged with constructive and feminist practical theological views to come to a biblical and theological understanding of intergenerationality in Christian education.

Specifically, I have reflected on biblical images and metaphors and have examined theological views on children as subjects of mutual love and agency in the faith community. Such a kaleidoscopic understanding can contribute to a reconstruction of intergenerationality in the faith community. It can do so in a creative and radical way in which children play a significant role in revitalizing their faith communities and their Christian education as spiritual agents, means of grace, and a bridge within Korean congregations. For such a revitalization in the community, an intentional intergenerational pedagogical practice is required.

While this chapter focused mainly on the relational aspect of intergenerationality, in the following chapter I will explore children’s spiritual awareness from the perspective of cognitive

63 developmental science and studies of children’s spirituality respectively as part of my exploration of intergenerational Christian education with and by children.

Chapter 2 An Exploration in Spiritual Cognition in Childhood

Chapter two explores recent studies on children’s spiritual cognition. The purpose of this exploration is to provide empirical evidence to support children’s cognitive capability to participate in and make an active contribution to intergenerational Christian education in Korean congregations. Theoretical and research-based studies of children’s spirituality have been burgeoning for the past two decades,1 with one of main foci being spiritual cognition in childhood. Theorists and researchers have responded critically to stage-structural theories of religious and spiritual thinking rooted in the traditional Piagetian framework, 2 and now argue that the traditional theories underestimate children’s capacity for spiritual awareness because of their preconceived ideas about the immaturity of children’s spiritual and religious cognition.3

Another criticism is that traditional theories often overlook the significant influence of diverse cultural contexts on children’s spirituality. By focusing mostly on an intrinsic developmental progression they fail to capture the diversity of faith at any one age.4 These two shortcomings influence theory and practice to the point where children tend to be undervalued as creative,

1 David Hay and Rebecca Nye, The Spirit of the Child, rev. ed. (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006); Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., eds., The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006); Pamela Ebstyne King and Chris J. Boyatzis, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” in Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science: Socioemotional Processes, ed. Richard M. Lerner and Michael E. Lamb, Vol 3, 7th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015). 2 By the late 1990s, research on this topic was dominated by cognitive developmental approaches based on a linear, universal stage structure, whether it was studies focusing directly on religious thinking, such as the one by Ronald Goldman, the one on religious judgement by Fritz Oser and Paul Gmünder, or comprehensive approaches to faith development, such as James Fowler’s work. James W. Fowler, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981); Fritz K. Oser and Paul Gmünder, Religious Judgement: A Developmental Approach (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1991). 3 King and Boyatzis, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 982; Jack O. Balswick, Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 319–320. 4 King and Boyatzis, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 982.

65 spiritual agents and reflective participants in intergenerational congregational education, which leads, either intentionally or unintentionally, to age-segregation in the community.

Given the above background, I focus in this chapter on two recent approaches to an epistemic and cognitive issue in children: a phenomenological and a cognitive-cultural approach.

While these two approaches have different methodologies, i.e., a philosophical perspective using empirical research versus cognitive developmental psychology, I expect that this comparative work can contribute both to the development of a discourse on children’s spirituality, and to the enrichment of intergenerational Christian education. Before engaging with the aforementioned approaches, I first explore briefly how children’s spirituality is related to spiritual awareness generally, and how it is viewed in the current research. I then explore the main ideas in hermeneutic phenomenological description and in cognitive-cultural approaches respectively.

1. Two Approaches to Children’s Spiritual Awareness

In current research on children’s spirituality, there is a debate about an epistemological issue, i.e., the role of spiritual awareness in children,5 and how this issue is related to other components of children’s spirituality, such as the physical, emotional and social aspects.

Although many scholars and researchers agree that children’s feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences concerning the Transcendent make spirituality a multidimensional construct, a major

5 One author who explores this issue of children’s cognition in spirituality is Shellie Levine. “Children’s Cognition as the Foundation of Spirituality,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 4, no. 2 (1999): 121– 140. Levine argues that the cognitive skills manifested by children are necessary preconditions for spirituality. She uses a phenomenological framework for arguing for children’s cognition as the foundation of spirituality, although her approach is different from Brendan Hyde’s, which I review in section 2 of this chapter.

66 challenge in examining children’s spirituality is focused on their sense or awareness of the

Transcendent and their inherent connectedness to “something more.”6

To see how spiritual awareness in children is perceived, I review two definitions of children’s spirituality and the locus of spiritual awareness and cognition found therein.7 One of the two is David Hay and Rebecca Nye’s proposal that children’s spirituality is relational consciousness and a related spiritual sensitivity in childhood. The other comes from the

Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C.

Roehlkepartain et al., which has contributions from a number of scholars and researchers in developmental science.

Forming a milestone in research on children’s spirituality, The Spirit of the Child by

David Hay and Rebbeca Nye, started a movement about children’s spirituality in both academic and practical fields, including religious and public education and pastoral theology. One of their main contributions to the recent research on children’s spirituality is that they emphasize the importance of spiritual awareness and sensitivity for understanding children’s spirituality as a whole.

Hay and Nye identify relational consciousness as a core category of children’s spirituality. In their view, the term “relational” refers to relationship with self, others, the world, and possibly with the Transcendent, while the term “consciousness” refers more to being alert and mentally active.8 The consciousness identified in children has a reflective quality, which

6 Chris J. Boyatzis and Babette T. Newman, “How Shall We Study Children’s Spirituality,” in Children’s Spirituality: Christian Perspectives, Research, and Application (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2004), 168. 7 In the current research into spirituality in childhood and youth, there is a definitional issue over whether the terms “spirituality” and “religiosity” are compatible. Since I acknowledge that the two terms are distinguishable, but not separate, I prefer the term spiritual/spirituality to religious/religion. For this definitional issue, see Eugene C.Roehlkepartain et al., “Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence: Moving to the Scientific Mainstream,” in The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 4–5. 8 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 109.

67 entails a degree of awareness of the spiritual nature of an experience, and which fosters a new dimension of understanding, meaning, and experience.9 Chris Boyatzis and Bebette Newman also point out that various definitions of children’s spirituality emphasize the centrality of relationship and self-transcendence in spirituality.10

Concerning the role of spiritual awareness in children’s spirituality, Hay and Nye initially proposed three interrelated categories of spiritual sensitivity or awareness: awareness-sensing, mystery-sensing, and value-sensing. Before exploring each of these, it is helpful to note what

Hay and Nye hold in terms of the connection between relational consciousness and the three categories of spiritual awareness. By using the verb “sense,” the authors pay special attention to the way children perceive or know their existence, the world, and beyond. In their view, understanding the spiritual sensitivity embedded in children is a starting point in apprehending the rich landscape of children’s spirituality.

First, awareness-sensing means that we are able to become aware by “paying attention” to what is happening, and by being reflexive through attentiveness towards one’s own attention, or in other words, “being aware of one’s awareness.”11 This kind of sensing includes immediate awareness (here-and-now), empathy with experience (tuning), and bodily awareness, or felt sense (focusing). Hay and Nye hold that, for children, such awareness-sensing is not unfamiliar at all, and is in fact quite natural in early childhood.12

Second, mystery-sensing means awareness of aspects of our life experience that are incomprehensible. According to Hay and Nye, this sense brings us into the vast mystery of our existence and also into our limitedness. They hold that when young, children experience wonder

9 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 109. 10 Boyatzis and Newman. “How Shall We Study Children’s Spirituality,” 168. 11 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 65. 12 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 65-70.

68 and awe in their experience, or when they use imagination in their everyday life experiences, such as play, where they find themselves surrounded by mystery and discover meanings and values in response to those experiences.13

Third, value-sensing is the process of finding that feeling or affect are significant in spiritual awareness. Hay and Nye argue that the undervaluing of feeling that accompanies the heavy emphasis on cognitive skills when seeking to understand children’s spiritual sensitivity prevents us from seeing how the conscience or moral sense of children is deeply related to this sensing. For this reason, they provide three dimensions of value-sensing as examples: delight and despair, ultimate goodness, and meaning finding.14

Although Hay and Nye mention that these three categories of spiritual sensitivity are a

“provisional” starting point to understanding children’s spirituality, it is worth pointing out that they also appreciate the importance of the epistemic aspects of children’s spirituality. They also suggest that the task of nourishing spirituality is one of releasing, and not restraining, a child’s understanding and imagination.15 As Brendan Hyde points out, Hay and Nye’s notion of spirituality potentially bridges two important aspects of children’s spirituality on a continuum: At one end, spirituality entails awareness and sensitivity, while at the other it encompasses mystical experience, and being related to and not separate from the Other.16

In the Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, and in spite of coming from diverse backgrounds, e.g., cognitive psychology and cognitive anthropology, a

13 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 71-75. 14 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 74-77. 15 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 149. 16 Brendan Hyde, “Weaving the Threads of Meaning: A Characteristic of Children’s Spirituality and its Implications for Religious Education,” British Journal of Religious Education 30, no. 3 (2008): 235–236.

69 group of scholars and researchers in the field of developmental science roughly agree on a scientific definition of spiritual development as follows:

Spiritual development is the process of growing the intrinsic human capacity for self- transcendence, in which the self is embedded in something greater than the self, including the sacred. It is the developmental “engine” that propels the search for connectedness, meaning, purpose and contribution. It is shaped both within and outside of religious traditions, beliefs and practices.17

This definition suggests the following conditions of spiritual development in childhood.

First, children’s spirituality is the innate capacity by which children are capable of self- transcendence, and which drives multiple development processes, including the physical, the emotional, the relational, and obviously, the cognitive. This group of scholars insists that “there is a core and universal dynamic in human development that deserves to be moved to center stage in the developmental sciences, alongside and integrated with the other well-known streams of development: cognitive, social, emotional, and moral.”18 Related to such an understanding of spiritual development, some researchers, such as cognitive-cultural theorists, argue that the cognitive issue should not be ignored or neglected in the discussion of children’s spiritual and religious development.19

To sum up, spiritual awareness in childhood is considered to play a crucial role in children’s spirituality, and as a distinct, but not separate, part of the multidimensional and interrelated construct of children’s spirituality, which includes feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences. This understanding provides an epistemic ground for intergenerational Christian

17 Roehlkepartain et al., “Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence,” 5–6. 18 Roehlkepartain et al., “Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence,” 5. 19 Carl N. Johnson, and Chris J. Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations of Spiritual Development,” in The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 211–212.

70 education with children. In what follows I explore the two approaches, starting with the hermeneutic phenomenological framework to spiritual awareness in childhood.

2. Hermeneutic Phenomenological Approach to Spiritual Awareness in Children

In this section, I explore a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to spiritual awareness in children that shows their capability for reflective meaning making and spiritual quest through their felt senses. The exploration is in support of children’s active participation and agency in intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children. For this task I mainly draw on the work of Brendan Hyde, who uses “hermeneutic phenomenology” as a theoretical framework to explore the spiritual dimension of childhood, and children’s spiritual awareness in public and religious education settings. I first look at how Hyde views children’s spirituality from this perspective, and then examine his argument that the spiritual awareness of children has four characteristics.

2.1. Hermeneutic Phenomenology as a Framework for Children’s Spirituality

An Australian-based, Catholic researcher, Hyde uses hermeneutic phenomenology as his research methodology for examining children’s spirituality. Basically, Hyde argues that an important notion in the discussion of spirituality is the idea of mystery. He defines mystery as that which transcends human understanding,20 and which captures and engages the

20 Brendan Hyde, “Beyond Logic–Entering the Realm of Mystery: Hermeneutic Phenomenology as a Tool for Reflecting on Children’s Spirituality,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 10, no. 1 (2005): 33.

71 imagination.21 He goes on to assert that mystery pervades the relational understanding of spirituality in terms of connectedness to self, others, the world, and to the Transcendent.22

This understanding of children’s spirituality leads him to adopt the method of hermeneutic phenomenology in his attempt to understand the spiritual awareness of children. His research methodology is rooted in the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, who argued that knowledge is realized in the interpretation and understanding of the expressions of human life.

Explaining why he uses a philosophical method, Hyde argues that hermeneutic phenomenology opens up a middle space of deep engagement between the research object—which in this case is children—and the researcher.23 His research on children’s spirituality is conducted within this framework, using qualitative empirical research to understand reality as subjective and dimensional, as seen by the participants of a particular study.24

As part of his approach, Hyde draws on Max van Manen’s four “lifeworld existentials” to function as guides for reflecting on the life expressions and spiritual dimension in children’s lives. According to Hyde, these four existentials permeate the lived experiences of all human beings, regardless of social, cultural or historical context. They are lived space (spatiality), lived body (corporeality), lived time (temporality), and lived human relations (relationality).25 In order

21 Brendan Hyde, “Lifeworld Existentials: Guides to Reflection on a Child’s Spirituality,” Journal of Religious Education 51, no. 3 (2003): 29. 22 Hyde, “Beyond Logic–Entering the Realm of Mystery,” 33. 23Brendan Hyde, Children and Spirituality: Searching for Meaning and Connectedness (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008), 63. 24Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 65. Hermeneutic phenomenology as a theoretical framework is adopted by some scholars and researchers to explore children’s spirituality, but due to the limitations of this work, I cannot include all those voices here. However, the following works are helpful for understanding the arguments: Elaine Champagne, “Being a Child, a Spiritual Child,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 8, no. 1 (2003); R Scott Webster, “An Existential Framework of Spirituality,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 9, no. 1 (2004); and Shellie Levine, “Children's Cognition as the Foundation of Spirituality,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 4, no. 2 (1999). 25 Hyde, “Beyond Logic–Entering the Realm of Mystery,” 33; Children and Spirituality, 73–75.

72 to better understand his findings in relation to spiritual awareness in children, I explore what he means by the “four existentials.”

To begin with, “lived space” is the landscape in which people move and in which they consider themselves at home and is distinct from geometrical space. Hyde maintains that by inquiring about the nature of lived space one may render a particular experience or phenomenon in terms of its quality of meaning.26 Next, “lived body” is the phenomenological fact that human beings are always literally bodily situated in the world. Children encounter one another in the lifeworld through bodily presence, such as through handshake, embrace, and so forth. By this physical bodily presence something is both revealed and concealed at the same time.27 Third,

“lived time” refers to the time that seems to change relatively, depending on the child’s lived experiences and feelings. According to Hyde, this is the human being’s temporal way of being in the world. In this sort of time, the past and present are interpreted and reinterpreted with a surge of feelings and lived experiences, while the future is taking place at that moment.28 Four, “lived human relation” means the relationships children maintain with others in the interpersonal space they share. Hyde asserts that people encounter one another in a corporeal way and search for a sense of life’s meaning and purpose in their experience of the Other. This appears to be a spiritual search in the broad sense of pursuing the Transcendent, God, or life’s meaning and purpose.29

When it comes to children’s spiritual awareness for intergenerational Christian education, the second and fourth existentials appear to be especially important, as children perceive the meaning and spiritual concepts in their lived experiences through their bodily activities and their

26 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 74. 27 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 74. 28 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 74. 29 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 74–75.

73 relationships with the self, others, and the Transcendent, or God. Hyde does not clearly distinguish spiritual cognition from other aspects of cognition, such as physical and emotional.30

However, it appears that his understanding of children’s spirituality is focused particularly on the spiritual consciousness expressed by children. I now turn to look at the characteristics of spiritual awareness that Hyde argues can be found in children’s spirituality.

2.2. Four Characteristics of Spiritual Awareness in Children

The initial purpose of Hyde’s empirical research into children’s spirituality was to investigate whether the three interrelated categories of spiritual sensitivity outlined by Hay and

Nye are workable for school-aged children.31 From his empirical research into children’s spirituality and their spiritual awareness, Hyde proposes four characteristics of children’s spirituality: the felt sense, integrating awareness, weaving the threads of meaning, and spiritual questing. From this, it is evident that Hyde understands spiritual awareness as a significant aspect of a complicated, multidimensional spirituality in childhood, related to both bodily and relational senses.

2.2.1. The Felt Sense

30 While Hyde acknowledges in one of his works, which was co-written with Michael T. Buchanan, that there are cognitive, affective, and spiritual dimensions to learning and knowing, he relates the term “cognitive” to the acquisition of declarative and functional knowledge as well as the acquisition of skills and abilities. This cognitive dimension is distinguished from the “spiritual” dimension, which is understood in terms of the “connectedness, or relationship an individual has with self, others, the world, and possibly with the Transcendent, named in the Christian tradition as God.” The latter is closer to Hyde’s understanding of spiritual awareness as integrated knowing and learning. Michael T. Buchanan, and Brendan Hyde, “Learning Beyond the Surface: Engaging the Cognitive, Affective and Spiritual Dimensions within the Curriculum,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 13, no. 4 (2008): 310–313. 31 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 70–71.

For Hyde, the felt sense refers to the way in which a child draws on the wisdom of his or her own body as a natural and prime way of knowing.32 The felt sense entails “attending to the here-and-now of experience, the total engagement in a particular activity, and the alertness to what might be experienced in moments of concentration and stillness.”33 First of all, this felt sense means bodily awareness, by which children encounter and act upon the world.34 Drawing on Eugene T. Gendlin’s notion of focusing, Hyde maintains that spiritual awareness is not just a mental, but is also a bodily experience, which makes possible the awareness of situations, persons, or events.35 In other words, spiritual cognition is an embodied sense, such that a child knows and thinks about the world he or she lives in, or the relationship he or she makes through the whole body. In this sense, one can see how Hyde relates embodied spiritual thinking to children’s spirituality as a way of spiritual knowing.

Hyde insists that the felt sense enables children to attend with concentration and stillness to here-and-now experience, by totally engaging in an activity, event, or relationship that is either personal or at a deeper level of connectedness. Based on his empirical research, he argues that when children are completely absorbed in an activity, such as a jigsaw puzzle or drawing, and while they are attending to the present moment of their experiences, they are often observed as becoming “lost.”36 Hyde links this notion of being lost in the felt sense to the notion of flow introduced by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who describes flow as the feeling one might have when one reads a compelling book or becomes engrossed in a fascinating

32 Brendan Hyde, “Godly Play Nourishing Children’s Spirituality: A Case Study,” Religious Education 105, no. 5 (2010): 510. 33 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 84. 34 Brendan Hyde, “The Identification of Four Characteristics of Children’s Spirituality in Australian Catholic Primary Schools,” International Journal of Children's Spirituality 13, no. 2 (2008): 120. 35 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 86. 36 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 86.

75 conversation.37 Hyde argues that among the lifeworld existentials, the felt sense in children’s spirituality is related to the lived body and to lived space, which means that children, through their corporeality or felt sense, become absorbed in experiences that seem to use imagination to bridge the divide between self and object, and between past, present and future.

What is meaningful in his notion of the felt sense is the idea that children can think about something beyond the self, including the Transcendent or ultimate unity with God, even if only for short periods of time. Hyde argues that when children engage in an event or activity, and are attuned to their physical bodily knowing, they become unified with their chosen activity, being concentrated and lost. The capacity of children to become unified in this manner can be indicative of their ability to engage in a movement toward Ultimate Unity or the Other.38 In this regard, Hyde notes that the felt sense can enable children to become unified with the Other, albeit for a short time, at the deepest and widest levels of connectedness.39

2.2.2. Integrating Awareness

Hyde suggests that “integrating awareness” is another characteristic of spiritual awareness in children. He maintains that this awareness is an ability that children have to integrate different levels of their awareness.40 He argues there are at least two levels of awareness discernable in children’s spirituality when they engage in certain activities or life events. The first awareness, observed along with the felt sense, appears when children begin to focus on an activity they are involved in and seem to transcend the activity, by entering a free-

37 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 84. 38 Hyde, “The Identification of Four Characteristics of Children’s Spirituality,” 121. 39 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 90. 40 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 97.

76 flowing style of conversation. While their concentration remains on the activity at this initial level of awareness, a second level of awareness or consciousness begins to appear, during which children speak freely in conversation without losing their concentration on what they are doing, because they are in a sense oblivious to others, such as friends or observers. For Hyde, the emergence of a second wave of awareness envelops or becomes integrated with the initial level of consciousness.41

He points out that the felt sense, reviewed above, and integrating awareness, were evident when he examined the notion of awareness in his empirical research. Along with concentrated awareness, which is the initial level of awareness exhibited during activities and events, he believes it is important to note that a second level of consciousness integrates with the existing one. This integration connects the different levels of awareness, and is the merging of temporal and relational horizons, an insight Hyde draws from the theory of Ken Wilber, a transpersonal psychologist.42 Hyde agrees with Wilber that there are various developmental levels of consciousness that unfold in a person, and that the higher levels of consciousness enfold the lower dimensions, embracing and balancing the waves of consciousness.43

Hyde points out that integrating awareness is often found in a safe, confidential, and, most importantly, relational space for children. He holds that in such a space, children are able not only to integrate different levels of awareness, but also to become less self-conscious and to connect with the Other through conversation.44 When children are welcomed and not excluded in their communities, connecting with the Other through fusion, transcendence and integration can

41 Hyde, “The Identification of Four Characteristics of Children’s Spirituality,” 121. 42 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 100, 102–103. 43 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 101. 44 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 102–103.

77 be elevated, and may lead them into relationship with the Transcendent.45 Although he admits that children of elementary-school age integrate awareness at more basic and less sophisticated levels, he also holds that this too can be recognized as a characteristic of their spiritual knowing.

2.2.3. Weaving the Threads of Meaning

Hyde sees “weaving the threads of meaning” as a significant characteristic of spiritual awareness in children. Weaving the threads of meaning refers to the way children use their sense of wonder as a means of expressing their spirituality. They piece together a worldview based in their attempts at meaning-making.46 This spiritual awareness is conceived and expressed by the child’s sense of wonder and awe, the fascination and questioning that occurs when a child interacts with the mystery of universe.47 Hyde confirms that weaving the threads of meaning is closely related to the mystery-sensing Hay and Nye identify as one of their interrelated categories of children’s spirituality.

What meaning do children then weave through spiritual cognition? For Hyde, children’s meaning-making is linked to the notion of connecting spiritually with self, others, the world, and with God. He holds that children draw eclectically from a range of different frameworks of meaning. For instance, when a child grows up in a Christian family and congregation, he or she may make meaning, not only from the Christian meta-narrative, but also from an range of other concepts and ideas, thereby creating a personal framework that draws upon a sense of wonder at the experience of mystery.48 In this way the child weaves strands of meaning from the

45 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 105. 46 Hyde, “Weaving the Threads of Meaning,” 235. 47 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 108. 48 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 108.

78 contemporary pluralistic, multicultural world into a framework that provides a spiritual sense of personal centeredness and enables that child to make meaningful connections with the

Transcendent and others.49

Hyde remarks that this notion is reminiscent of the life existential of lived space he presents as a guide to reflection. Rather than being bound to geometrical space, children who abide in the lived space experience a “spatiality of situation,” or an orientation towards what is possible.50 They thus engage in finding personal significance and meaning from their own worldview and from the Other, by exercising their freedom to make these meanings their own.51

In short, Hyde sums up this childhood spiritual awareness as weaving a sense of connectedness.

A remarkable study on children’s theological meaning making echoes this point.52 In his doctoral dissertation, David Csinos argues that “children are not simply passive consumers of theology; they actively generate theological meaning for themselves.”53 According to Csinos, children not only make theological meaning in ways that are held universally with others, but they also do so by substantially reflecting and sharing the broader culture of their congregation, without losing the uniqueness of their meaning making,54 and even putting “their own fingerprints on the process of creating theology.”55 Following Csinos’ thesis, it is possible to boldly argue for children’s ability to reflect on their lived faith in daily life and congregational education and ministry.

49 Hyde, “The Identification of Four Characteristics of Children’s Spirituality,” 123. 50 Hyde, “Weaving the Threads of Meaning,” 241. 51 Webster, “An Existential Framework of Spirituality,” 14. 52 David Michael Csinos, “An Exploration of Children and Culture in the United Church of Canada” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, Toronto, 2017), 1, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Csinos conducted qualitative research on children’s theological meaning making through participant observation, focus groups with congregational leaders, and interviews with children in four congregations in the United Church of Canada. 53 Csinos, “Children and Culture,” 1. 54 Csinos, “Children and Culture,” 175. 55 Csinos, “Children and Culture,” ii.

2.2.4. Spiritual Questing

Finally, Hyde mentions spiritual questing as the last characteristic of spiritual awareness in children’s spirituality. He relates this awareness to the value sensing Hay and Nye propose, which has to do with the morality of children, that is, a sense of the Other and the relationship of self with the Other, including the supernatural.56According to Hyde, when children are invited to answer a question related to meaning and significance, such as “What do you think really matters?” or “If you could have three wishes, what would you wish for?” they engage in a spiritual questing that promotes imaginative creativity, which is also the practical formation of self-identity and ways of being in the world.57

Adapting the notion of “questing postmodernity” from the work of Harold Howell, Hyde explains how children may become spiritual questers. Questing postmodernity posits a shift away from the confidence of previous times toward the greater ambiguity and multiplicity that are characteristic of the present time.58 As such, children as spiritual questers have the opportunity to move from certainty toward new and perhaps more authentic ways of connecting with self, others, the world, and, for some, with God,59 especially when they face meaningful questions or existential events such as the death of a family member or pet. In this sense, Hyde understands the current milieu as one which provides change in the form of freedom. This freedom enables children to envision more life-giving and life-enhancing ways of being and knowing.

56 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 125. 57 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 130. 58 Hyde, “The Identification of Four Characteristics of Children’s Spirituality,” 124. 59 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 125.

When it comes to the ethical aspect of spiritual questing, Hyde argues his empirical research reveals that children’s spiritual questing is expressed in very diverse ways, for example, through their experience of the Other, through family, through a fascination with the supernatural, through altruism, and through a concern for the larger themes of life, such as love.

It is worth noting two examples Hyde provides, as a point of comparison with the cognitive- cultural approach, which I discuss next. The first example is that children’s spiritual questing entails a sense of the Other and the relationship of Self with the Other and, for some, with God.

According to Hyde, when children are asked what matters most to them, those with a Catholic background often prioritize their relationship with God, Jesus or Mary, and seem to define their identity through their relationship with God. For others, with no religious background, it is the

Transcendent that provides a sense of identity and life’s meaning and purpose.60 Another example he gives are those who are seeking a sense of connectedness through the notions of magical and supernatural powers that appear frequently in contemporary media and books. He maintains that for some children such notions are deeply influential in their meaning making and in shaping their worldviews. By searching for more life-enhancing ways of being in the world through the Other, they move beyond personal gratification.61 In sum, children can be spiritual questers who participate in searching in their experience of the Other for a sense of life’s meaning and purpose.

I find it noteworthy that Hyde sees weaving the threads of meaning and spiritual questing as characteristics of children’s spiritual awareness, because some theorists, such as cognitive- structuralist theorists, would hold that children are too young to pursue spiritual quests. They would see religion or spirituality as requiring mature cognitive capacities, thereby following a

60 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 130–131. 61 Hyde, Children and Spirituality, 133.

81 similar developmental trajectory to other normal mental processes.62 Against such a view, Hyde argues that children have the spiritual capacity to make meaning and follow a spiritual quest in their own way, something that has been little acknowledged by adults. If one agrees with his argument that “existential issues mark the boundaries of human experience … these limits are just as fundamental to the lives of children as they are the adults,”63 one would also argue that spiritual questing is significant, not only in adults’ spiritual lives, but also in those of children.

Daniel Batson maintains that a spiritual quest signifies an important religious characteristic in adulthood, meaning “a readiness to criticize and to face complexity or existential questions” and

“openness to change.”64 If so, should we not postulate that both adults and children have the capability to pursue a spiritual quest? A question remains in terms of the relationship between children’s spiritual questing and their developmental, specifically their cognitive, capabilities, however. If Hyde is correct, then it is possible to argue that the traditional religious development theories, especially cognitive-structuralist theories, should be radically revised in light of the thesis that young children have the spiritual capability to make meaning and find the values that matter to them.

In this section I have focused on Hyde’s use of hermeneutic phenomenology as a theoretical framework in exploring children’s spiritual awareness, showing how it plays a crucial role in revealing a rich spiritual dimension to their lives. I also have reviewed his attempts to examine four interrelated characteristics of children’s spiritual awareness, which are the felt sense, integrating awareness, weaving the threads of meaning, and spiritual questing.

Acknowledging children’s spiritual awareness as relational, and recognizing the self-

62 James M. Nelson, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality (New York: Springer, 2009), 222. 63 Hyde, “Godly Play Nourishing Children’s Spirituality,” 513. 64 Nelson, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality, 289.

82 transcendence embedded in their spiritual lives, leads us to see that children’s spiritual sense should not be evaluated as a uniform, conceptual logic processor, but instead as a much more complicated multidimensional sense, involving their bodily, emotional, and relational senses in integrating different levels of awareness and meaning-making. This finding leads to the conclusion that children’s spiritual and existential senses may be much more complicated and also closer to a sense of mystery than one might have imagined. Also, understanding these characteristics helps when thinking about how young children can participate in and contribute to intergenerational Christian education in meaningful ways, for example, by providing a secure space to share their spiritual reflection with adult participants, or encouraging them to express their spiritual questing in verbal and non-verbal ways such as drawing, craft, and praying together. This would be beneficial not only for children but also for other generations such as adolescents and adults. Also beneficial for understanding spiritual development in children is the cognitive-cultural approach, to which I now turn.

3. Cognitive-cultural Approach to Spiritual Development in Children

Cognitive-cultural approaches to spiritual cognition in children have been acknowledged by scholars and researchers in areas as diverse as psychology, developmental science and cognitive anthropology. For this approach, I specifically focus on the works of developmental psychologists, Chris Boyatzis and Paul Johnson. I pay attention to their argument that children’s spiritual cognition is not radically different from that of adults, and that development of spiritual cognition in childhood is considerably more influenced and formed by cultural context than the traditional Piagetian scholars have assumed. This argument provides grounds for children’s

83 active participation and pedagogical agency in the intergenerational Christian education of

Korean congregations.

3.1. Cognitive-cultural Approach to Children’s Spiritual Development

A cognitive-cultural approach to children’s spiritual and religious cognition is a branch of cognitive developmental psychology in the broad sense.65 A core question raised by this approach is how spiritual and religious beliefs are acquired by people in general, and by children in particular. This approach is distinct from other cognitive developmental theories in two ways: it rejects stage-structural models and pays considerable attention to the influence of culture in forming spiritual cognition. Before focusing on the cognitive-cultural approach in detail, I briefly look at the two emphases of this approach.

To begin with, scholars who support a cognitive-cultural approach reject or at least thoroughly revise the classic Piagetian view. Among many other aspects, they reject the view that a young child’s thinking is irrational and prelogical, and insist that young children can handle different systems of thinking about reality and value with “intuitive ontology,” a concept that will be reviewed in detail later.66 This approach was sparked by a new movement in

65 The term cognitive-cultural approach is given in an essay by Johnson and Boyatzis in Roehkepartain et al., eds. Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, and is also introduced in Richard M. Lerner, ed., Handbook of Child Psychology, 6th edition. In the Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, 7th edition, the latest edition of the series published in 2015, Boyatzis, who coauthors with Pamela Ebstyne King a chapter entitled “Religious and Spiritual Development,” refers to this approach under the section of “cognitive-developmental approaches” instead of using the term religious cognition. The authors note that this approach refers to a broad group of cognitive-developmentalist approaches, which includes not only traditional Piagetian scholars such as David Elkind, but also theorists of the mind concerned with religious and spiritual concept, who are recognized as belonging to a new wave of cognitive-developmentalism. In this dissertation, I use the term “cognitive-cultural approach” to distinguish it from “cognitive developmental approach,” supporting the former. 66 Some scholars note that with its focus on domain-specific development and cultural diversity, a cognitive-cultural approach is post-Piagetian and grounded in postrationlism. Fritz K. Oser, W George Scarlett and Anton Bucher, “Religious and Spiritual Development Throughout the Life Span,” in Handbook of Child

84 cognitive development that sharply emphasized the early intuitive, domain-specific nature of knowledge, and paid attention to the representation of supernatural agents and actions, such as

God, prayer, afterlife and so forth.67 It is an approach that echoes Hay and Nye, who criticize the narrowness of stage-structural approaches as “coming near to dissolving religion into reason and therefore childhood spirituality into nothing more than a form of immaturity or inadequacy.”68

Second, a cognitive-cultural approach pays significant attention to the crucial role of context in spiritual development. This emphasis is closely associated with developmental systems theories, which emphasize transactions between individuals and their multilayered contexts. According to the developmental systems perspective, the fit between person and environment is of prime concern.69 The cognitive-cultural approach agrees with this perspective, emphasizing that early spiritual and religious cognitive capabilities are culturally nurtured and recruited.70

In relation to spiritual and religious cognition, Johnson and Boyatzis identify four traits of the cognitive-cultural approach to children’s spirituality. First, they argue that spiritual development arises from the same human cognitive capacities that lead to the emergence of art, science, and technology. As Roelkepartain and his colleagues argue, spiritual developmental is an integral part of normal, human cognitive-developmental processes and mechanisms.71

Second, Johnson and Boyatzis point out the dynamic interplay between culture and cognition. For these scholars, cognitive abilities depend on culture, just as culture depends on

Psychology: Vol.1. Theoretical Models of Human Development, 6th ed. Williams Damon and Richard M. Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006), 970. 67 Johnson, and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 213. 68 Hay and Nye, The Spirit of the Child, 57. 69 Roehlkepartain et al, “Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence,” 8. 70 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 211. 71 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 220.

85 these abilities. While the Piagetian recognizes the interplay between influences of the environment and the developing cognitive structure of children as assimilation, the cognitive- cultural researcher better appreciates the role of cultural practices and scaffolding in the development of spiritual cognition.72

Third, Johnson and Boyatzis assert that the cognitive-cultural foundation for spiritual cognition is established within the first few years of life. In their view, young children develop capacities to make core ontological distinctions, for example, distinguishing ordinary actions from the special, magical powers of wishing or prayer, and inferring imperceptible essences and forces beyond the here and now.73 Although Johnson and Boyatzis admit that these cognitive capacities in young children establish an intuitive spiritual foundation, they insist that this does not mean that children’s spiritual cognition is immature or inferior to that of adults.

The fourth and final trait of the framework is that spiritual concerns are propelled by intrinsic connections between cognition, affection, and value. According to Johnson and

Boyatzis, these intrinsic connections are important: for example, human emotion is driven by what we perceive to be the objects of human emotion. They argue that spiritual ideas bear on ultimate existential concerns.74 This point seems to suggest children’s spiritual cognition can be multidimensional and is associated with the concepts of relationality and self-transcendence. I now turn to the process of spiritual cognition proposed by Johnson and Boyatzis as part of their cognitive-cultural approach to explore how a new perspective on children’s spiritual cognition can shed light on intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations.

72 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 215. 73 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 212. 74 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 213.

3.2. Spiritual Cognition in Children’s Spiritual Development

A cognitive-cultural approach to children’s spiritual cognition accounts for the way children employ both endogenous cognitive processes and cultural inputs to shape their thoughts.

Here I focus on spiritual cognition in children’s spiritual development, as proposed by the cognitive-cultural approach. For this discussion, special attention is paid to three important notions: domain-specificity, intuitive and counterintuitive ontologies, and culture.

3.2.1. Domain-specificity

Theorists of the cognitive-cultural approach argue that spirituality is a non-universal domain or a domain-specific way of thinking. These theorists propose that spiritual cognition is grounded in the notion of domain-specificity for its theoretical foundations. Proponents of domain-specificity search for competencies specific to non-universal domains rather than just those competencies that cut across domains, as proponents of domain-generality tend to argue.75

According to scholars who support this cognitive-cultural approach, by the age of four, young children have a fairly well-developed intuitive knowledge in three broad domains: the physical, biological, and psychological.76 Applying this notion of domain-specificity to the development of spiritual cognition, the cognitive-cultural framework theorists suggest that spiritual and religious development is not a separate cognitive domain, but is instead a domain that draws on the cognitive achievements originally designed for mundane tasks. In other words, according to this view, young children are not simply rational or irrational, but instead are capable of handling

75 W. George Scarlett, “Toward a Developmental Analysis of Religious and Spiritual Development,” in The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 29. 76 Pascal Boyer and Sheila Walker, “Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Input in the Acquisition of Religious Concepts,” in Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, ed. edited by Karl S. Rosengren, Carl N. Johnson, and Paul L. Harris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 135.

87 different systems of thinking about reality and values.77 This argument is sharply opposed to the traditional Piagetian view, in terms of which the cognition of young children is regarded as prelogical. This new understanding sheds light on intergenerational Christian education in the way it illuminates both children and adults’ spiritual cognition.

3.2.2. Intuitive ontology and counterintuitive ontology

From the cognitive-cultural perspective, children’s spiritual cognition is very similar to that of adults in terms of basic thought patterns. Scholars following this framework claim that children and adults’ thinking may not be altogether different, due to the operation of domain- specific thinking.78 Seemingly opposite concepts, for example, rational and magical thinking, or ordinary and extraordinary reality, may coexist in the minds of children and adults alike. This perspective challenges the Piagetian view of children as cognitively immature, and also that of cognitive constructivism, with its invariable stage models.79

The cognitive-cultural account of the process of spiritual and religious cognition explains how this works: spiritual and religious thinking in children operates in terms of two thinking systems: intuitive and counterintuitive. Intuitive thinking is natural thinking about everyday events. As the default system, it depends on direct observation of what is taking place in children’s daily lives, with their thought system working as an innate push to find patterns and empirical causal connections.80 This process reveals that young children have a well-developed

77 Scarlett, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 29. 78 King and Boyatzis, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 981. 79 King and Boyatzis, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 981. 80 Scarlett, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 30.

“intuitive ontology,” i.e., “a set of broad categories about the types of things to be found in the world, together with quasi-theoretical assumptions about their causal powers.”81

A second system operating in relation to spiritual matters is counterintuitive thinking.

The term “counterintuitive” includes “some conceptual elements that violate ordinary intuitive expectations of the kind”82 that are routinely described in cognitive accounts, or more simply, the ideas experienced in everyday life. According to the proponents of this view, this kind of thinking becomes available through the influence of the surrounding culture, specifically the religious culture, rather than arising out of the child’s own reflections on reality. It is argued that when growing up in a religious or spiritual culture in a broad sense, children are easily exposed to counterintuitive ideas and worlds and have little difficulty taking these ideas and words into their own world.83

On the relation between intuitive and counterintuitive thinking around spiritual concepts,

Johnson and Boyatzis suggest that from early on, children organize reality in terms of ontological categories, distinguishing physical from mental, animate from inanimate, and natural from supernatural kinds of things.84 They maintain that through this early capacity for spiritual cognition, children are prepared to think about natural and supernatural possibilities equally, which is called a mode of “double booking.”85 This view contradicts the traditional Piagetian account that children confuse thoughts with things, life with inanimate movement, and believe that ordinarily mortals can do supernatural things. According to them, the capability to differentiate spiritual kinds of things was considered a late developing achievement in their

81 Boyer and Walker, “Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Input,” 135. 82 Boyer and Walker, “Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Input,” 134. 83 Scarlett, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 29. 84 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 211. 85 Scarlett, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 29.

89 capacity of reasoning.86 This point is also supported by recent studies on the coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across development.87 Examining how children and adults respond to distinct natural and supernatural explanatory accounts of the world around them, such as the origin of species, illness, and death, the researchers argue that natural and supernatural explanations are often used by both children and adults in a complementary rather than an exclusive manner. They then conclude that supernatural explanations often increase rather than decrease with age and that reasoning about supernatural phenomena is an integral and enduring aspect of human cognition.88

Given the coexistence of intuitive and counterintuitive cognition, the cognitive-cultural framework emphasizes that this capacity for spiritual thinking is possibly no different in children and adults. Johnson and Boyatzis argue that multiple thought processes, including intuitive and counterintuitive thinking, are seen to coexist and compete in the minds of children and adults alike.89 According to Johnson and Boyatzis, the difference of quality in spiritual development between children and adults does not result from their cognitive capacities, but from the difference in the degree of exposure to experiences, and the amount of knowledge.90 Echoing the theory of mind that children’s religious concepts are part of the general growth of understanding of the mind, agency, and mental-physical causality,91 the cognitive-cultural framework understands children’s spiritual cognition as neither more primitive nor more mature than other

86Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 211. 87 Cristine H. Legare et al., “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations across Cultures and Development,” Child Development 83, no. 3 (May/June 2012): 779-793; Justin T. A. Busch, Rachel E. Watson- Johns, and Cristine H. Legare, “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations within and Across Domains and Development,” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 35, no. 1 (2017): 4-20. 88 Legare et al., “The Coexistence,” 789-790. 89 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 214. 90 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 215. 91 King and Boyatzis, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 981.

90 kinds of thinking, but simply different.92 Eli Gottlieb also points out that theory-theorists, who take their inspiration from contemporary, post-Piagetian developmental research—although not focusing on religious and spiritual development—emphasize continuities between the thinking of children and adults and attribute residual age differences to quantitative differences in cultural knowledge rather than qualitative differences.93 Jack Balswick, Pamela King, and Kevin Reimer also echo this idea, arguing that young children’s spirituality is merely different from, not less than or deficient from typical or adult spirituality.94

However, they do not ignore qualitative change in the development of children’s spiritual cognition. For example, Johnson and Boyatzis point out that development proceeds from intuitive understanding to an increased capacity for reflective ideas.95 They maintain that “while children start out with powerful inference mechanisms for intuitively sorting out what exists in the world, conscious reflection on the nature and origins of the world is a subsequent development,” with intuition not “lost,” but guided by and integrated with reflective ideas.96

However, it should not be forgotten that their emphasis is on the coexistence of intuitive and counterintuitive ontologies in both children and adults, unlike the traditional Piagetian idea that children gradually abandon a belief in supernatural causation and acquire a more scientific and

92 Oser, Scarlett and Bucher, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 970. 93 Eli Gottlieb, “Development of Religious Thinking,” Religious Education 101, no. 2 (2006): 244. 94 Balswick, King, and Reimer, The Reciprocating Self, 319. 95 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 218. 96 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 218. This idea is also supported by some scholars who advocate the theory of mind in relation to religious thinking. For example, Henry Wellman recognizes the development of religious thinking is closely related to an everyday theory of mind of young children, especially in relation to the development of reflective ideas. Henry M. Wellman, Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), 265–286. Also, Henry M. Wellman, “The Child’s Theory of Mind: The Development of Conceptions of Cognition,” in The Growth of Reflection in Children, ed. Steve R. Yussen (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1985). For a discussion on the relationship between an origin of religious cognition of human beings and a Christian epistemology, see Kelly James Clark and Justin L. Barrett, “Reformed Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion,” Faith and Philosophy 27, no. 2 (2010): 174–189.

91 objective appreciation of cause and effect.97 In this regard, proponents of the cognitive-cultural perspective conclude that spiritual development, including spiritual and religious cognition, rests on ordinary cognitive processes that naturally lead thinking beyond given appearances toward higher and deeper levels of reality and value.

3.2.3. Role of culture in shaping spiritual cognition

As noted before, for the scholars who support the cognitive-cultural approach to children’s spirituality, the role of culture and environment is obviously crucial. While the traditional Piagetian acknowledges the interaction between the development of reasoning in childhood and the environment, this view assumes that the direction and stage-based development of reasoning is fixed in a universal way. The cognitive-cultural approach proposes that cultural practices and scaffolding should be appreciated in the development of spiritual cognition. Unlike the former approach, this view assumes that children and adults are alike as social and not isolated beings, and that they both participate in multilayered cultural practices and rituals.98

Concerning the crucial role of culture in spiritual cognition, Boyatzis and his colleagues point out the family and its narrative are significant cultural contexts. When it comes to the influence of the family, they insist that both parent religiosity and parenting behavior have a

97 Jean Piaget, Judgement and Reasoning in the Child (London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1928); Busch, Watson-Johnson, and Legare, “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations,” 4–5. 98 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 215. For a different approach to the role of culture and ethnicity in spiritual development, see Jacqueline S. Mattis et al, “Ethnicity, Culture, and Spiritual Development,” in The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006).

92 substantial impact on children’s spirituality and spiritual cognition.99 Another important cultural force for forming spiritual cognition is narrative. Boyatzis and Johnson hold that narrative is at the heart of familial and personal meaning-making and is therefore integral to spirituality and the development of spiritual cognition.100 This emphasis on family and its narrative as a crucial context and source for nurturing children’s spiritual development may be applicable to the congregation, which is also a vital socializing institution for both children and adults. As

Roehlkepartain and Patel put it, faith communities play a crucial cultural role, not simply as deliverers of programs but as complex, dynamic ecologies conducive to spiritual development.101

3.3. Spiritual and Religious Concepts: Supernatural Agents and Actions

How are spiritual and religious concepts expressed concretely by children in the cognitive-cultural approach? Johnson and Boyatzis argue that young children identify special qualities of supernatural beings and actions. They hold that spiritual concepts expressed by children are observed at very early ages, regardless of those children’s involvement in religious institutions or families devoted to a specific religion. Furthermore, spiritual and religious concepts operate under the same conceptual principles and tendencies as children’s everyday cognition, depending on how the concepts are assimilated within developing cognitive frameworks.102

99 Chris J. Boyatzis, David C. Dollahite and Loren D. Marks, “The Family as a Context for Religious and Spiritual Development in Children and Youth,” in The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 297–306. 100Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 219; Boyatzis, Dollahite and Marks, “The Family,” 301. 101 Eugene C. Roehlkepartain and Eboo Patel, “Congregations: Unexamined Crucibles for Spiritual Development,” in The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 324. 102 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 213.

Johnson and Boyatzis attempt to find evidence from empirical research to support their claim about children’s capability for spiritual cognition by drawing on intuitive and counterintuitive ontologies, between which they distinguish. For this task, they look at the intuitive foundation of children’s understanding of supernatural kinds of agents and actions, such as concepts of God, spirit, afterlife, and prayer.103

For example, when it comes to concepts of God, Johnson and Boyatzis find that children and adults are not fundamentally different. Unlike the traditional Piagetian, who supposes that children have concrete, anthropomorphic notions of God, children appear to represent God using concepts with both natural and supernatural properties. Johnson and Boyatzis assert that young children may distinguish special qualities of God or the Transcendent that are not constrained by ordinary laws of nature.104 In fact, they maintain that even adults have an anthropomorphizing tendency when expressing God concepts.

Likewise, supernatural actions such as prayer and rituals are cognitively understood as special actions that are framed by an intuitive understanding of ordinary actions.105According to

Jacqueline Woolley, children’s belief in the efficacy of prayer cannot be attributed to their holding magical views of the causal powers of thinking. Their belief in the efficacy of prayer is rather a result of socialization in their family or broader contexts.106 In relation to this finding,

Paul Harris states that counterintuitive spiritual concepts, such as God and spirit, do not require children to give up their intuitive, commonsense concepts of ordinary agents. “The child is not

103 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 213. 104 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 214. 105 Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 215. 106 Jacqueline D. Woolley, “The Development of Beliefs About Direct Mental-Physical Causality in Imagination, Magic, and Religion,” in Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, ed. Karl S. Rosengren, Carl N. Johnson and Paul L. Harris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 125.

94 designed to stick to the actual… [and] is equally curious about the nonactual.”107 In sum, the cognitive-cultural framework seems to challenge proponents of traditional cognitive approaches to revise their views in the following areas: first, counterintuitive spiritual and religious concepts operate in parallel to intuitive, nonreligious beliefs;108 and second, children’s concepts of supernatural agencies are not radically different from those of adults. In short, the two points noted above are remarkable, because such a perspective leads us to radically revise our existing perspective on children’s spiritual cognition, as well as intergenerational practices for and with children.

In this chapter I have explored two approaches to children’s spiritual awareness in relation to intergenerational Christian education. In the last section, I examined the way new approaches to children’s awareness can bring fresh insights to an understanding of children’s spiritual awareness, which is a multidimensional and relational consciousness that enables children to search for meaning and connectedness in their lives from an early age. In the introduction, I pointed out that one of main reasons why many communities of faith are age- fragmented in their educational practices is because of their biased perspective on children’s spiritual cognition. Children are seen as immature in spirituality in general, and in particular, as less capable of deep levels of spiritual thinking than adults. From the critical comparative reflection on the two approaches to children’s spiritual awareness, it is possible to argue that the new perspectives can bring fresh insights to the theory and practice of intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children.

107 Paul L. Harris, “On Not Falling Down to Earth: Children’s Metaphysical Questions,” in Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, ed. Karl S. Rosengren, Carl N. Johnson and Paul L. Harris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 176. 108 Oser, Scarlett and Bucher, “Religious and Spiritual Development,” 976.

Along with these new insights, I conclude this chapter with justifications from this study for intergenerational Christian education. Firstly, new insights into children’s spiritual awareness can contribute to reshaping a community of faith in such a way that all members, including children, are acknowledged as equal. This would not only be the result of appreciating that all human beings are created equally, but would also result from respecting children’s spiritual awareness of self, others, the world, and God.

Secondly, children can play a crucial role as agents in intergenerational Christian education by bringing to bear their own spiritual reflection on beliefs and Christian lives. While

Johnson and Boyatzis do not go further and emphasize children’s agency in a religious community, if one appreciates children’s active role in bidirectional socialization, it is not hard to imagine that their spiritual and pedagogical agency may be recognized in intergenerational learning. By listening carefully to children’s voices and the reflections experienced through their spiritual senses, the community of faith can invite them to become active participants in educational practices, rather than simply including them as listeners or passive learners.

Third, new perspectives on children’s spiritual awareness facilitate reconsideration of existing educational content and methods in a more intergenerational way. Listening to and respecting children’s spiritual voices could help educators develop new intergenerational educational methods and practices for Korean congregations with children.

Finally, I find that the cognitive-cultural approach puts a strong emphasis on the decisive role of cultural context in the development of spiritual cognition in childhood. This point leads to reaffirming the significance of the role of faith communities and intergenerational Christian education for nurturing spirituality for both children and adults in a reciprocal way.

Chapter three will focus on the specifically pedagogical aspects of intergenerational

Christian education. For this I will review intergenerational Christian education theories developed in North America since 1970s, especially faith community theories, examining their contributions and limitations as intergenerational pedagogical approaches, as well as identifying the locus and pedagogical role of children therein.

Chapter 3 A Critical Analysis of Socialization Models of Intergenerational Christian Education

Chapter three explores socialization/enculturation models of intergenerational Christian education. The central purpose of this chapter is to identify some features of these theories and analyze them in terms of their relational and pedagogical aspects, with a special focus on children, in order to further the discussion on intergenerational education for Korean congregations with children. My thesis is that while these socialization/enculturation models are valuable for intergenerational Christian education, they need to be complemented by critical reflection on inviting people of all ages to make meaning and be mutually empowered in faith. In the first section I briefly review how intergenerationality has been understood in the discipline of

Christian education. I then turn to a critical analysis of socialization/enculturation models of intergenerational Christian education.

1. The Development of Intergenerational Christian Education Theories

Pursuing a genuine intergenerationality is one of the most significant concerns in the

Christian faith community and in Christian education. Allan Harkness claims that ever since the emergence of Christian faith communities there has been an awareness that such communities need to encourage and embody a genuine intergenerationality.1 In similar vein, Holly Allen and

Christine Ross claim that intergenerationality has deep roots in Christian Scripture, and has been normative throughout Christian history:

1 Allan G. Harkness, “Intergenerational Education for an Intergenerational Church?” Religious Education 93, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 431.

Throughout Scripture there is a pervasive sense that all generations were typically present when faith communities gathered for worship, for celebration, for feasting, for praise, for encouragement, for reading of Scripture, in times of danger, and for support and service. … To experience authentic Christian community and reap the unique blessings of intergenerationality, the generations must be together regularly and often—infants to octogenarians.2

In this matter Christian education has a pivotal role in forming genuine intergenerational community, testifying to God’s grace and love, and which binds generations into a community of faith, as well as a community where generations teach and learn mutually and generatively.

Many intergenerational Christian education theorists focus on intentional intergenerationality. Among them, Allan Harkness presents a theological rationale for intergenerationality in Christian education that has three aspects: (1) intergenerationality as an expression of who God is; (2) intergenerationality as the essence of the church; and (3) intergenerational processes as integral to personal faith development.3 He insists that intergenerationality is a signifier of the “being-in-communion” of the triune God, as well signifying the sort of church where various generations interact intentionally and mutually to grow in faith together. Harkness points out that the major trigger for the intergenerational approach was an increasing concern that children were not being adequately catered for in traditional church education programs, and that other groups, such as senior adults, single adults, and youth, have also been isolated from mainstream congregations.4 In such communities of faith, all generations need to grow in faith in a way that enhances mutual acceptance, discipleship, and Christian integrity.5 Given this understanding, Harkness leads us to see

2 Holly Catterton Allen and Christine Lawton Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation: Bringing the Whole Church Together in Ministry, Community, and Worship (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academics, 2012), 84. 3 Harkness, “Intergenerationality,” 125. Also see Harkness, “Intergenerational Education for an Intergenerational Church?” 436–441. 4 Harkness, “Intergenerational Education for an Intergenerational Church?” 433, 438. 5 Harkness, “Intergenerationality,” 128–132.

99 intergenerationality, with its promise of mutual enrichment between generations, as normative for the faith community and for Christian educational practice.6 Allen and Ross echo Harkness’ insistence, arguing that the term intergenerational includes within it “a commitment to a philosophy of ministry that intentionally brought various generations together in meaningful dialogue.”7

During the last two decades, many scholars and practitioners inside and outside Christian educational and theological circles have conducted vigorous research into intergenerational relationships and learning in light of prevalent generation-segregated practices and programs and their impact on communities.8 Education theorist Karen VanderVen argues there is need for a theoretical framework that considers the multiple aspects embedded in intergenerational relationships. 9 She argues that intergenerational theory requires the selection and integration of relevant “source” theories, all of which need to focus on the reciprocal transformation implied in the relationships between the generations.10

6 Allan G. Harkness, “Intergenerational and Homogeneous-Age Education: Mutually Exclusive Strategies for Faith Communities?” Religious Education 95, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 52. 7 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Education, 19. 8 While the disciplines that pay attention to intergenerationality include education, communication, geography, politics, developmental science, and gerontology, to name a few, it is worth noting several research studies in order to understand the concept in a broad sense: Elizabeth Larkin, ed., Intergenerational Relationships: Conversation on Practice and Research across Cultures (New York: Haworth Press, 2004); Bernhard Schmidt- Hertha, “Different Concepts of Generation and Their Impact on Intergenerational Learning,” in Learning Across Generations in Europe (New York: Springer, 2014); Karen VanderVen, “Intergenerational Theory in Society: Building on the Past, Questions for the Future,” in Intergenerational Relationships: Conversations on Practice and Research Across Cultures, ed. Elizabeth Larkin et al. (Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press Inc., 2004);; Leena Alanen, “Childhood and Intergenerationality: Toward an Intergenerational Perspective on Child Well-Being,” in Handbook of Child Well-Being, ed. Asher Ben-Arieh et al. (New York: Springer, 2014). 9 Karen VanderVen, “Intergenerational Theory in Society,” 79. 10 VanderVen provides a comprehensive list of related theories along with a focusing question to be used when implementing an intergenerational theory or program, i.e. combinatory aspects (How are people at different stages of life combined and what are the characteristics of these combinations?), cultural transmission (How can intergenerational theory consider the role of older adults as transmitters of important experiences from their own childhood?), relating to a relationship (How can intergenerational theory highlight the dynamics inherent in a third person’s relating to a relationship between two other persons?), reciprocal transformation (Can the hermeneutic concept of “reciprocal transformation” further adumbrate the reciprocity inherent in the definition of intergenerational relationships?), and multigenerational relationships (Can we adapt intergenerational theory to the

100

In the next section I analyze socialization models of intergenerational Christian education, paying special attention to their relational and pedagogical aspects. Each point will be critically examined through the thematic lenses developed in chapters one and two, i.e., children’s participation and agency in mutual relationship in the faith community (chapter one), and the multidimensional and relational character of children’s spiritual awareness and their own sort of reflective capability (chapter two). An investigation with such criteria is helpful for revealing new insights and uncovering critical questions on the topic.

2. Socialization Models of Intergenerational Christian Education Since the 1970s

Since the 1970s, some Christian educationists who argue for the faith- community/enculturation approach have focused on the intergenerational transmission of faith in the congregation as a means of overcoming the age-segregated schooling/instruction paradigm of the North American context. The reason why I analyze socialization models of intergenerational

Christian education in North America is that the theoretical resources on the issue are published mainly on this continent, and while they reflect their own concerns about segregation in congregational education, the issue is increasingly recognized as an urgent problem in Korean congregations as well. Although each education theorist in that group offers their own approach or model, they agree that faith is formed and enculturated by an intentional process among the generations in the congregation. Among those who advocate the faith community/enculturation approach, C. Ellis Nelson (religious socialization), John H. Westerhoff (faith enculturation), and

Charles Foster (event-centered education) provide foundational theories of socialization for

possibility of multigenerational relationships involving three, or even four, people belonging to different generations?) VanderVen, “Intergenerational Theory in Society,” 92.

101 intergenerational Christian education, insisting that Christian education in the congregation should involve people of all ages and should consider congregational life and mission as the curriculum and method.11 Since the emergence of socialization models, variants with an explicit focus on intergenerational fellowship and interactions with particular theoretical and theological emphases have been developed that are strongly rooted in their precursors. 12

In the following critical examination, I explore three models that function as foundational theories for intergenerational Christian education, that is, religious socialization, faith enculturation, and event-centered education models.

2.1. Foundational Models: Socialization/Enculturation Approach

2.1.1. The Religious Socialization Model

C. Ellis Nelson is a prominent pioneer in the socialization/enculturation approach. He argues for religious socialization as a pedagogical means of developing an intergenerational congregation. Nelson insists that “faith is communicated by a community of believers and that the meaning of faith is developed by its members out of their history, by their interaction with

11 C. Ellis Nelson, Where Faith Begins (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1967); How Faith Matures (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989); Growing Up Christian: A Congregational Strategy for Nurturing Disciples (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008); John H. Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? (New York: Seabury Press, 1976); Bringing Up Children In the Christian Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1980); John H. Westerhoff and Gwen Kennedy Neville, eds., Generation to Generation: Conversations on Religious Education and Culture (Philadelphia, PA: United Church Press, 1974); Charles R. Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1982); Educating Congregations: The Future of Christian Education (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994); From Generation to Generation: The Adaptive Challenge of Mainline Protestant Education in Forming Faith (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012). 12 James W. White, Intergenerational Religious Education: Models, Theory, and Prescription for Interage Life and Learning in the Faith Community (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1988); Howard Vanderwell, ed., The Church of All Ages: Generations Worshipping Together (Herndon, VA: Alban Institute, 2008); Mariette Martineau, Joan Weber, and Leif Kehwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation: All Ages Learning Together (New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2008); Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation; Holly Catterton Allen, ed., InterGenerate: Transforming Churches through Intergenerational Ministry (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2018).

102 each other, and in relation to the events that take place in their lives” (Italics added).13 For

Nelson, the community of faith is itself a place where faith sharing and meaning making takes place through personal interactions and “events” that are pedagogical. Yet while Nelson’s notion of a community of believers is basically intergenerational, his focus is mainly on the adult members of a congregation functioning as socializers, insisting that “religion at its deepest levels is located within a person’s sentiments and it’s the result of the way he was socialized by the adults who cared for him as a child.”.14 Nelson sees the education of adults as the starting point of socialization, and considers the congregation the educating agency. One of the reasons why he emphasizes the role of adults in congregational nurturing is because he is reacting against the overemphasis on children-centered education that was widespread both in religious and secular education in North America in the early twentieth century. Even though his approach seems unidirectional, moving from adults to children in a less than mutual way, he does not underestimate the interaction between adults and children. His argument is rather that adults should take responsibility for nurturing the faith of children and youth and for encouraging young people to be an organic part of the congregation.15

Adult-led Congregation as Formative and Interpretive Community

Nelson understands religious socialization as a formative process in the transmission of a religious tradition, in and through participation in the faith community. Tradition does not mean conservatism for Nelson; it denotes instead the distinctive lifestyle of a religious group as an intentional, dynamic formative and transmissive process connecting the past and the present.16 In

13 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 10. 14 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 9. 15 Nelson, How Faith Matures, 219. 16 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 69–70.

103 this regard, the Christian tradition and experience are inseparable from and in dialogue with each other, and are experienced through the events of our communal life.17 From this understanding of tradition, Nelson argues that congregational socialization has three roles in transmitting faith to people of all ages in the faith community. First, congregational socialization helps people create their Christian identity through personal interactions and events such as worship, fellowship, and confronting ethical issues within the faith community.18 Second, the congregation forms

Christian conscience and value systems as people interpret the Scriptures as well as their own lives.19 Third, congregational socialization leads people to establish a system of perception in relation to the Christian world view, a Christian faith that creates expectation in hope, and that provides and connects meaning to the events in which people participate.20

As part of his understanding of religious socialization, Nelson emphasizes biblical interpretation and portrays the church as a “community of interpretation.”21 Because the whole event of congregational socialization is a context and curriculum for interpreting the Scriptures as well as participants’ experiences, he identifies the need for instructive activities. The traditional school-centered Christian education system is inadequate as the principal means of congregational Christian education,22 although this does not mean that congregations should abandon all forms of instruction. He himself does not abandon the school metaphor, and calls the congregation a “school of faith.”23 Addressing how to avoid being tradition-bound while still

17 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 80–93. 18 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 102–120. 19 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 172–174. 20 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 141. 21 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 185–186. 22 C. Ellis Nelson, “Formation and Transformation,” in Growth in Grace and Knowledge: Lectures and Speeches on Practical Theology 1949–1992 (Austin, TX: Nortex Press, 1992), 238. It is worth noting that Nelson prepared this article for his address for the Centennial Celebration of the Presbyterian Church of Korea in 1984. In this article/address, he mentions that the reconsideration of school-centered Christian education may be helpful to Presbyterians in Korea as they plan for the next hundred years. Nelson, “Formation and Transformation,” 238. 23 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 186.

104 honoring the living Christian tradition, Nelson claims that the faith community must subject its activities to systemic examination and make appropriate changes.24 He goes on to insist that adults in the congregation need a well-organized and serious study of religion because in many cases their religious development was arrested back in childhood.25 Further, in relation to religious experience, Nelson argues for the need for critical reflection: “Experience and thinking about experience are in a dialectical relation to each other. Without experience there is little religion to think about; but experience, being extremely personal, needs critical reflection in order that it be instructive for other believers.”26 For this reason, the adult congregation needs to develop critical intelligence.27

Nelson’s views on adult-led congregational socialization may lead us to conclude that children are too immature and unprepared to participate in congregational education, or that a traditional school-centered Christian education system needs to be maintained for young people until they become adults. Nelson in fact opposes such an idea, saying that “if we just reverse the strategy of the Sunday school and of the liberal religious education movement and focus attention on adult rather than on children we automatically will solve our problem of communicating faith.” At the same time he appears to contradict himself when he says that “we cannot assume that adults will respond to the same educational efforts we have learned to use for children and youth.”28 One may then wonder how “a community” of believers encourages people of all ages to fully participate in congregational socialization and from what age young people can learn to interpret the Scriptures, making and connecting meaning to their lives? Likewise, his

24 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 186. 25 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 193. 26 Nelson, How Faith Matures, 76. 27 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 192. 28 Nelson, Where Faith Begins, 194.

105 emphasis on the interpretation of the Scripture and the development of critical intelligence for parents and adults in the congregation, means he does not pay sufficient attention to children’s participation in that interpretation as learners and, further, as interpreters.

Childish Religion and Children’s God Images

While Nelson’s main focus is on adults as socializers in the faith community and on their meaning making and interpretation of the Christian tradition and experiences, in his later work,

Growing Up Christian, he does pay attention to spiritual cognition in childhood to show how it is heavily influenced by parents, family, and faith communities. Emphasizing the role of parents and adult teachers in forming children’s images of God, Nelson attempts to change the conventional question about Christian education: from “How and what should we teach each age in the church?” to “How do children learn about God?”29 As this question shows, Nelson focuses on the fact that children have primitive mental images of God that are based first of all on their relation to their parents, and secondly, on their relation to a faith community. Drawing on cognitive developmental sources from the psychoanalytic tradition, including Maria Rizzuto and

Roberts Coles,30 Nelson argues that the way parents and congregation relate and what they teach and say to children provide the feelings and information from which children form their images

29 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 37. 30 Anne-Maria Rizzuto, The Birth of the Living God (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979); Robert Coles, The Spiritual Life of Children (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990). Beside the sources of the psychoanalytic tradition, Nelson mainly draws psychological sources from research included in Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th edition published in 1998, while my research on children’s spiritual and religious cognition comes from 6th (2006) and 7th (2015) editions. As I noted in chapter two, there has been remarkable progress in research on children’s cognitive development since Nelson examined the issue; for example, the rapid emergence of theories of mind since the 2000s. Although the primary goal of this dissertation is not so much to investigate the psychological foundations of intergenerational Christian education theories as to review the theories and propose an integrated intergenerational Christian education approach, it is important to examine the sources each approach (and mine) are based on, in order to understand children’s spiritual development and cognition for intergenerational pedagogical practices.

106 of God.31 Nelson calls the religious development of children aged seven to ten “childish religion,” meaning children at this age begin to formalize their image of God as well as the basic piety from which an adult understanding of God may emerge. This is not necessarily related to a specific religious tradition or conviction but is a normal function of the mind.32 Interestingly,

Nelson insists that children have unique images of God that reflect their concerns. He understands children as “theologians” who “absorb teachings about God, respond to events that happen to them, and experience an increasing ability to think and speculate.”33 However, his view on children and their religious development appears ambivalent: on the one hand he depicts them as absorbers of generational ideas about God that have enduring value if blended with religious instruction and life experience. On the other hand, their childish religion needs to be corrected or even discarded as they grow toward the conscious realization or conviction to which older teenagers and adults must come. 34 Nelson provides no explanation of such correction. He also distinguishes children from adolescents, who “often express their image of God or the life and work of the church to which they belong,” arguing that congregations need to be “exactly the place teenagers need to voice their doubts and still be accepted.”35 One may wonder whether children as “theologians,” as he puts it, also need such a secure space for their voices and reflection to be heard and shared in the congregations, but he appears silent on the place of children here.

From Nelson’s understanding of children’s formation of God images and childish religion, we can draw at least three points. First, he believes that children’s spiritual cognition is

31 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 127. 32 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 55, 63–64. 33 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 63. 34 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 67–68. 35 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 65.

107 a crucial part of their faith development. Second, his understanding of Christian nurture in the family and the congregation is closely related to children’s cognitive development in general and forming God images in particular, as proponents of the cognitive-cultural approach to children’s spiritual cognition agree. Third, for Nelson, the family and congregation take responsibility as socializers, while children are socializees whose childish religion needs to be corrected or even discarded when they grow and as they come to a conscious realization in late adolescence and adulthood.36

In light of his understanding of children’s spiritual development, Nelson considers how the church can facilitate young people’s experiences of faith in worship, sermon, and instruction.

Here Nelson prefers the word nurture to education, given that nurture connotes a direct relation between people and more clearly connects the act of instruction to life situations.37 What is noteworthy is that Nelson stresses the role of the congregation in helping parents create and maintain a Christian influence in the home. For example, he suggests that the congregation may help church members to discover the value of Christian practices in the home as well as at church, or of planning family-centered practices38 and religious instruction.39 While he aims at a paradigm of intergenerational education in the congregation, Nelson still seems to put more weight on adults and their roles in a unidirectional way. In other words, Nelson is not as

36 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 67–68. 37 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 128. 38 Nelson has a strong interest in a movement under the banner of “Practicing Our Faith” led by Dorothy Bass and Craig Dykstra who are considerably influenced by Alasdair MacIntyre’s practical philosophy. Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 129. Also see C. Ellis Nelson, Helping Teenagers Grow Morally: A Guide for Adults (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23-33. Nelson distinguishes the idea of Christian practice from the institutionalized church for two reasons. First, “the practice demonstrates the power and priority of the beliefs of the community over its institutional forms.” Second, “the idea of Christian practice also provides a community of understanding and an expectation of what is good and what is right behaviour in various circumstances.” Nelson, Helping Teenagers Grow Morally, 28. Charles Foster also notes in the “Preface” to his book Educating Congregation, which was republished in 2006, that he had anticipated the discussion of Christian practices, by drawing on the language of practice in the book. Foster, Educating Congregations, 7. 39 Nelson, Growing Up Christian, 127–131.

108 interested in bidirectional socialization for children’s faith development through the faith community as he is in the significant role of the congregation in helping and equipping parents and adult teachers.

2.1.2. Faith Enculturation Model

John Westerhoff also argues for a faith community approach, which he calls faith enculturation. His direct interest in intergenerationality in Christian formation is far clearer than

Nelson’s. He explains that enculturation is the participation in and practice of a particular way of life.40 Westerhoff prefers the term “enculturation” to “socialization” or “intentional socialization,” given that enculturation centers upon “the process of interaction between and among persons of all ages” and “the mutuality of our engagements with each other, eliminating all categories such as teacher and student, adult (the one who knows) and child (the one who needs to know), socializer and socializee,” while socialization seems to focus on external factors that socialize people, such as environment, experiences, and the actions of others.41 Westerhoff argues that while many Christian teachers may succeed in conveying biblical and dogmatic knowledge and moral instruction, they have failed to share a living Christian faith about God and his love and salvation as they teach young people about Christianity through the school-

40 John H. Westerhoff, “The Church’s Contemporary Challenge: Assisting Adults to Mature Spirituality with Their Children,” in Nurturing Children’s Spirituality: Christian Perspectives and Best Practices, ed. Holly Catterton Allen (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2008), 359. 41 John H. Westerhoff III, Will Our Children Have Faith? 3rd revised ed. (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2012), 82. Here I will use the third revised edition of the book in which Westerhoff adds an “update” to each chapter, showing that his conviction of a catechetical, community of faith paradigm is more faithful than the schooling, instructional-training paradigm. Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? xviii.

109 instruction system.42 His understanding of enculturation appears to overcome the traditional boundaries of educational criteria, replacing them with values that are more mutual and equal.

Intergenerational Faith Community

Westerhoff places great emphasis on the church as a community that nurtures Christian faith and identity. According to Westerhoff, since faith is deeply personal, dynamic, and ultimate, it cannot be possessed by any one person, or given to one person by another; rather, faith is “expressed, transformed, and made meaningful by persons sharing their faith in an historical, tradition-bearing community of faith.”43 He argues that since we are persons in community with a totally dependent relationship with God and an interdependent relationship with others, both adults and children will never have faith unless there is a community of faith for them to live in and be influenced by.44 Related to this notion of shared faith, Westerhoff also pays special attention to the church as a “countercultural” community. Rooted in salvation from

God, a saved community of faith is called to bear witness in word and deed to God’s grace and liberation for others, especially the oppressed, the hurt, and the marginalized of the world.45 This does not mean that only the marginalized or the oppressed outside of the church should be considered as the church’s missional objects. Instead, Westerhoff argues that children should also be considered a significant part of a church in which both children and adults are invited to

42 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 19-20. It is worth noting Christian educationist Richard Osmer’s evaluation of the influence and contributions of Westerhoff to Christian education in the modernized American context. In the book cited above, he claims that Westerhoff’s enculturation paradigm is a reaction against modernized American religion which showed: (1) the expansion of moral and religious pluralism; (2) increased emphasis on the individual as the ‘anchor’ of religion; (3) the polarization of conservatives and liberals within and across different denominations, and (4) the rise of congregationalism in American religion. Richard Robert Osmer and Friedrich Schweitzer, Religious Education between Modernization and Globalization: New Perspectives on the United States and Germany (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 182–186. 43 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 20. 44 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 48. 45 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 39.

110 share Christian faith, and where adults need to learn from children and be careful not to control them.46

When it comes to intergenerational relationships and interaction in nurturing faith,

Westerhoff provides two images. The first is the interaction of three generations in a metaphorical relation to time. For a community to be a true community of faith and to facilitate faith enculturation, it requires the presence and interaction of at least three generations.47

Westerhoff sees the coexistence and interaction of three generations as necessary for a genuine community: The third generation is the generation of memory, without which the other two generations are locked into an existential present. The first generation is the generation of vision which comes along with memory, and the second generation is the generation of the present, which combined with the first and third generations, confronts the community with a present reality.48

The second image of Westerhoff provides is a metaphor of pilgrimage as the process of owning faith. Looking at the interaction between generations who are going through their own faith journeys, Westerhoff describes four styles of faith that expand like the growth rings of a tree: “experienced faith,” “affiliative faith,” “searching faith,” and “owned faith.”49 He endeavors to reveal how these types of faith expand through the interrelations between interaction, experience, and environment in God’s redeeming grace. The first is “experienced faith,” which is shared through interaction with others as affective experience, typically during the preschool and

46 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 17. 47 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 52–54. 48 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 53. 49 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 89-98. Westerhoff explains that his conceptualization of four styles of faith was influenced by James Fowler in Stage of Faith: The Psychology of Human Psychology and the Quest for Meaning (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981). While Fowler focuses on the development of faith itself, Westerhoff pays more attention to the interaction and enculturation between “faithing” selves with different styles of faith in the community. Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 89.

111 early childhood years, but also during the adult years. “Affiliative faith” occurs when we feel we belong to an identity-conscious community of faith and internalize the stories and ways of life that the community affirms, particularly during childhood and early adolescent years. “Searching faith,” which occurs during late adolescence, may entail experimenting with what we know and believe, employing doubt and critical judgement, and attempting to commit our lives to the meanings and purposes of faith, especially when encouraged to do so by the community. Persons with an “owned faith” that has been successfully shaped in early adulthood may witness to their faith in both word and deed. In this sense, the community of faith, where people live together with these styles of faith as corporate faith-selves, becomes the significant environment that provides and encourages the interactions and experiences necessary for the expansion of faith on a long pilgrimage.50

Formation-Centered Catechesis

Following from his understanding of faith community and children’s faith development,

Westerhoff reconceptualizes the term catechesis as the overarching process of enculturation in a communal and formative sense. For Westerhoff, catechesis is not so much religious instruction before baptism or confirmation as a life-long process of “Christening,” that is, the development of Christ-like persons and their character.51 Westerhoff understands catechesis as a composition of three intentional, interrelated, life-long processes, which are formation, education, and instruction/training. Formation is the central intentional process of engaging in enculturation.

Instruction/training is the means used to acquire the knowledge and skills of the Christian life of faith. Education is “critical reflection on the Christian faith and life in light of Scripture,

50 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 98. 51 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 141.

112 tradition, and reason,” or reflection on experience.52 He insists that he still considers the role of the education and instruction/training associated with formation important for catechesis. While

Christian educator Richard Osmer comments that in his early work Westerhoff notes the importance of critical appropriation by adolescents and adults,53 it seems clear that throughout his major works his greater emphasis is on formation.54

Westerhoff’s emphasis on formation-centered catechesis is closely related to his understanding of three aspects of corporate life as the means of enculturation: ritual, experience, and action.55 Here he places ritual at the center of intergenerational faith enculturation. Strongly influenced by cultural anthropology, he emphasizes the importance of rites and rituals, not only in the cultural and religious transmission of our understandings and ways, but also for transforming the crises and transitions in our lives into something through two kinds of rites: rites of community and life crises rites.56 According to Westerhoff, when these rituals and rites are supported and shared together in the faith community as meaningful communal experiences, they can lead people to act and participate in the world as a countercultural community of social change.57

From to- and for-Children to with-Children

I find that Westerhoff places more emphasis on children’s place and role in enculturation in his latest work than in his earlier ones. For example, in a chapter of Will Our Children Have

52 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 141. 53 Osmer and Schweitzer, Modernization and Globalization, 179. Osmer provides this claim based on one of Westerhoff’s earliest works, Generational to Generation (1974). 54 In the preface to the revised edition, Westerhoff reaffirms that education remains the key to faithful intentional formation. Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? xviii. 55 Westerhoff and Neville, Generation to Generation, 83. 56 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 55–57. 57 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 64.

113

Faith? which is reserved for practical suggestions on faith enculturation, Westerhoff is strangely silent on reciprocal influence between adults and children.58 Although it seems that the purpose of the chapter is not to provide theoretical information on the issue, it should still be consistent with his emphasis on mutual interactions between generations, which leads one to think, as

Nelson does, that Westerhoff’s view on children is ambivalent. On the one hand, Westerhoff argues that “when the Christian church is divided by race, social, or economic status, nationality or ethnic origin, true Christian community is once again outside our grasp… if one sex is restricted to particular roles or denied equal status, there can be no Christian community.”59 On the other hand, in the many practical suggestions given for his intergenerational education paradigm, Westerhoff rarely mentions how children are not only influenced by others as recipients, but also influence and teach them in the community, growing outward in faith toward owned faith.

In a recent article, however, Westerhoff acknowledges children’s agency in the faith community, something not clearly seen in his earlier works. He argues that adults need to do things not only to and for children but also with children. He calls this a relational model of equals.60 He goes on to assert that viewing the child (and youth) as a valuable piece of raw material on a production line (the to-children view) or as a valuable seed in a greenhouse (the for-children view) is limited and even dangerous, because such views prevent people in the community from seeing what children and youth can and should bring into the community.

Instead Westerhoff suggests that we see childhood metaphorically as pilgrimage, as he did in his

58 See Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? chapter five, “Hope for the Future.” In a section about the second style of faith in the chapter, Westerhoff calls it “dependent faith” instead of affiliative faith. I assume that he emphasizes belongingness in this style of faith with the term. If so, the subtitle should have been changed to “interdependent faith” to be consistent with his argument, especially in his latest work. See Westerhoff, “The Church’s Contemporary Challenge,” 361. 59 Westerhoff, Will Our Children Have Faith? 53. 60 Westerhoff, “The Church’s Contemporary Challenge,” 356–361.

114 early work, but this time he emphasizes a shared journey together through life (the with-children view). On this journey, both children and adults are called to form each other, so that children are not just the objects of adults’ teaching and instruction.61 In relation to the previous discussion on

Nelson, it seems that Westerhoff understands children’s faith development in a more positive way, reminding us that Jesus taught us to be “childlike,” unlike Nelson’s understanding of children’s religious development as childish religion. He goes on to insist that the best way for adults to learn to be childlike is to “be with children so children can influence them as they influence children.”62 Meanwhile, it should be noted that Westerhoff’s with-children view is considered in his formation-centered enculturation model. While one may wonder how children reciprocally participate in the education/critical reflection and instruction which he still includes in catechesis, it is clear that in his later work Westerhoff has made his theory and practice more intergenerational in a bidirectional way.

2.1.3. The Event-Centered Congregational Education Model

Charles Foster proposes an intergenerational approach called event-centered, or “event- full” congregational education. Echoing Westerhoff and Nelson in seeing intergenerational congregational education as an alternative to a schooling paradigm, Foster argues that it should be the aim of churches to educate people of all ages to be “the body of Christ in this fragmented world” for the sake of their commitment to and involvement in God’s transformation of the world.63 For Foster, one of the urgent problems in Christian congregations is “the loss of our

61 For this reason, Westerhoff prefers formation rather than instruction, training, or education. However, he still uses the term education with a revised meaning as critical reflection on experience in the light of the gospel. Westerhoff, “The Church’s Contemporary Challenge,” 359. 62 Westerhoff, “The Church’s Contemporary Challenge,” 361. 63 Foster, Educating Congregations, 8, 49.

115 connectedness across the ages—a loss that diminishes the intensity of our sense of identification with the followers of Jesus in the past and for the future.”64 According to Foster, disconnectedness across the ages is experienced not only in the age-segregated community and pedagogical practices, but also in the failure to recall the Christian tradition, which needs to be remembered and interpreted by the faith community for the formation of Christian identity and world view.

Given the problem of disconnection, Foster proposes an “event-full” intergenerational education that invites people of all ages in the church to participate in meaningful events relating to the past, present and future through congregational rituals, stories, and practices. As revealed in Scripture, acts of God are experienced as events by communities of people. According to

Foster, event-centered education revolves around the ways the community remembers certain events, which include paradigmatic, seasonal, and occasional events rooted in the Christian tradition and the particular histories of communities of faith, but which is also practiced around unexpected events in informal ways.65 Foster explains the educative power of events as follows:

Our relationship to events has an educative character. If they are to become important to us, we must be familiar with them. If we are to participate in them, we must learn how to do so. If we are to be agents of their meanings, we must develop sensibilities for the roles and responsibilities needed to fulfill that task. As we try to understand these events, we begin to link ideas and actions, to discover new possibilities for living. As these events become increasingly important to us, we find ourselves developing skills to interpret other experiences through their categories and concepts. As we encounter their limits to be gospel in our ever-changing situation, we find ourselves searching for new insights to live into their

64 Foster, Educating Congregations, 24. While Foster’s pedagogical agenda, which is intergenerational congregational education, is drawn from his own analysis of current challenges inside and outside the church, it is interesting to compare how he analyzes the contexts where he published two works related to the agenda, Educating Congregations in 1994 and From Generation to Generation in 2012. In the former, Foster refers to five flaws in church education, which are loss of corporate memory, irrelevance of biblical teaching, subversion of Christian educational goals, cultural captivity of church education, and the collapse of the church’s educational strategy. In the later work, Foster points to four “adaptive challenges” Christian congregations have newly confronted, which are the loss of reinforcing educational structures, a catechetical culture of formation in congregations, a compelling narrative of God, and intergenerational mentoring. This comparison helps us to see which pedagogical emphases Foster places in each work. Foster, Educating Congregations, 22–35; Foster, From Generation to Generation, 50– 71. 65 Foster, Educating Congregations, 42–47.

116

meanings and out of their possibilities. As we enter into the practice of participating in these events, in other words, they begin to inform and shape who we are.66

According to Foster, “event-full” education involves three movements: preparation, engagement, and mutually critical reflection. First, event-centered education requires preparation to empower our participation. According to Foster, preparation is not something dispensable, but helps participants “to move from ignorance, incompetence, and naïveté to familiarity and finally to the competence required for free and full participation in worship and mission.”67 The second movement is engagement in formative events that transform participants’ lives when and only if the participants enter into the meanings and practices of the events.68 The third movement is mutually critical reflection on the meanings people bring from their engagement with the event. 69 This movement requires two interrelated processes: sharing experience of the events in which they participated and assessing the meanings they drew from engagement in the events. In comparison to Westerhoff’s faith enculturation, which puts enormous stress on formation rather than on education/critical reflection and instruction/training,

Foster argues that an event-full intergenerational congregational education has two primary tasks, which are preparation and mutually critical reflection:

Congregational education would focus primarily on two tasks. The first would be to empower the participation of children, youth, and adults in worship and mission, the central actions of the church. The second would be to increase the ability of children, youth, and adults to reflect critically on the meanings of their participation in worship and mission for the sake of their commitment to and involvement in God’s transformation of the world.70

While these movements presuppose reciprocal interactions between all ages in congregational education, one needs to take a closer look at Foster’s view on how young people participate in

66 Foster, Educating Congregations, 38-39. 67 Foster, Educating Congregations, 47. 68 Foster, Educating Congregations, 48. 69 Foster, Educating Congregations, 48. 70 Foster, Educating Congregations, 49.

117 these shared events, reciprocally influencing and being influenced through those educational movements, especially their mutually critical reflection, and also what factors need to be considered to encourage their active participation.

Practice of Learning in Catechetical Culture

While Foster identifies three movements in his event-centered education model, his greatest emphasis is on intergenerational practices. In Generation to Generation, he argues that it is crucial to revitalize congregations as catechetical cultures so that the interplay of formal and informal practices might reinforce and sustain the learning all generations aspire to.71 Foster argues that participants enter the dynamics of interdependent modes of learning which are repetitively practiced or “reechoed” through event-centered education, that is, developmental learning, discovery learning, and practice learning.72 While the three modes of learning are necessarily interdependent in congregational education, it is practice learning that is the most important, but which receives the least attention in congregational education, to the point where young people barely identify with the heritage and mission of the communities they belong to.

Developmental learning is related to the expanding readiness of learners to take on increasingly complex learning tasks and has its roots in developmental theories. Discovery learning relates to the cultivation of curious and creative minds, for example, learning by posing questions or through deliberation. This learning is a critical source for maintaining and renewing

71 For Foster, this emphasis on practice comes from his own interest, but also has been reinforced by considerable attention from a branch of practical theology in the last two decades. See Dorothy C. Bass and Craig R. Dykstra ed., For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008); Dorothy Bass ed., Practicing Our Faith: A Way of Life for a Searching People, 2nd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010). 72 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 28, 98.

118 congregational life because of its explicit engagement in the “creative” appropriation of faith traditions.73

Foster pays special attention to practice learning, which takes place through the cultivation of the competencies that learners need to identify with if they are to participate fully in a congregation’s events and tradition.74 This practice learning is especially significant in forming faith, in that it leads to habits of memory that shape learners’ perceptions and actions and establishes a standard for personal participation in the life of the community. In other words, practice learning is social and historical, “embodied and contextual.”75 Foster’s emphasis on practice learning seems to be related to his concern about the congregation’s double message to young people, who are told they are “full members” through their baptism and not “members in training.”76 And for that reason, they are no longer supposed to need intergenerational mentoring or education for acquiring the knowledge and skills, but also the habits and practices that create the competencies needed for living in faith.77 It is helpful to note two practices in particular that

Foster proposes for intergenerational congregational education: hospitality and conversation. The practice of hospitality creates conditions for generously including children and youth in the life and mission of the congregation, thereby challenging their tendency to associate predominantly with others of their own kind.78 The practice of congregational conversation cultivates learning that forms faith across the generations as children, youth, and adults together prepare for and participate in the events that shape their identity as a community of faith. 79 This practice

73 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 34. 74 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 8-9. 75 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 32, 79. 76 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 67. 77 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 68. 78 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 98. 79 Foster, From Generation to Generation, 99, 107.

119 includes both formal and informal conversation in which children, youth, and adults share a compelling narrative of God and God’s meaning for the faith community.

The Vantage Point of All Ages

Foster considers “children, youth and adults” as co-participants in liturgical events and pedagogical practices. Binding children, youth and adults together as a faith community through congregational education does not simply mean imparting the wisdom of the older to the younger, nor does it mean viewing educational events from the vantage point of a specific age group in the community, for example, children.80 Instead Foster argues the congregation should design events and practices from the “vantage point of all ages” so as to be truly intergenerational and provide experiential opportunities to engage mutually with one another.81

To understand what he means by the vantage point of all ages, it is helpful to consider his understanding of diversity and how people from various backgrounds participate in the process of meaning making.82 Aware of the importance of making the ancient meanings and events of the

Christian Scripture and tradition relevant to the experience of contemporary congregational practices, Foster claims that people from different sociocultural backgrounds, sexes, and ages can discern quite different meanings from the same scriptural text or congregational event. He points out the danger of reducing religious thinking to privatized religious experience, and argues that one needs to avoid the temptation of simplifying, sentimentalizing, or trivializing a

80 Foster, Educating Congregations, 63; Charles R. Foster, “Intergenerational Religious Education,” in Changing Patterns of Religious Education, ed. Marvin J. Taylor (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984), 287. 81 Foster, “Intergenerational Religious Education,” 287-288. 82 In his latest article, Foster notes his view on Christian education has become more focused on cultural and racial diversity in the faith community. Charles R. Foster, “Religious Education in Forming Racially and Cultural Diverse Communities: How My Mind Has Changed,” Religious Education 113, no. 2 (March 2018): 130- 138.

120 pedagogical event and its consequences just to make it acceptable to people’s ears.83 He instead asserts that in congregational learning with people of all ages two points follow: one is the interactive dynamics of thinking, feeling, and physical movement in the process of making meaning,84 and the other, which seems more important for Foster, is recognizing and respecting the diversity of perspectives from people of all ages during the process of recalling and interpreting the Christian stories and tradition. To this end Foster argues for an education

“sensitive to helping people hear inside the experience of the other, to discover sources to the meanings of others, and to identify together strengths and problems in the conclusions each party makes.”85 Foster thus attempts to take the “vantage point of all ages” by viewing this intergenerational process through a lens of diversity, while not ignoring individual developmental capacities. While Foster does not clearly articulate when and where this meaning making is located in the three educational movements he proposes, one may find it practiced throughout all three movements—preparation, engagement, and mutually critical reflection.

Being Children and Being Childlike

Taking the vantage point of all ages in an intergenerational congregation means not only considering different perspectives and experiences and developmental capacities, but also viewing all participants as children of God. In Teaching in the Community of Faith, which is one of his earliest works, Foster highlights two biblical motifs in which people of all ages are called to be children and to be childlike.86 While the former motif focuses on the relationship between

83 Foster, Educating Congregations, 82. 84 Foster, Educating Congregations, 89. 85 Foster, Educating Congregations, 89. 86 In raising a metaphor of children, Foster notes that his intention is not to explore biblical perspectives on childhood so as to make programmatic suggestions and offer guidelines for education with children in the church, but that it is to “clarify what it means for people of all ages to be children of God” and to “explore the community of faith’s responsibility to teach people of all ages to participate in contemporary life as empowered members of the

121

God and the people of God, the latter is related to the formation of Christian identity with a reconsideration of maturity as shown in Jesus’ teaching. Foster asserts that recognizing all

Christians are called to be children of God is to recognize that they live as gifts from God and agents of God’s purposes. He argues that from a biblical perspective, children who exist “only as a direct consequence of God’s life-giving action initiated in the course of creation” and who

“participate in the covenants of our ancestors” are a primary means of God’s redemptive activity regardless of their age.87 This understanding not only helps people of all ages forge Christian identity based on their relationship with the life-giving God, but also challenges and changes the ways in which adults and parents teach and care for their physical and spiritual children, encouraging them to see children as learners, servers, and even “ministers” in the faith community.88

Foster argues that “the distinctions we usually make along age lines to describe maturity must be reviewed” when we see people of all ages as children of God.89 Recognizing the different views on children in the Christian scriptures—which represent “the faith of children” and “a childlike faith,” or “undifferentiated” and “differentiated” faith in psychological terms— he argues that these seemingly paradoxical views are not contradictory, but signify a twofold faith viewed from different angles in terms of the recurring interplay between making new meanings from certain events and connecting new experiences with existing faith commitments and meanings.90 He asserts that childlikeness is better understood as the quality of a mature faith,91 and argues that “the interplay of ambiguity and clarity, of undifferentiated participation

community of faith and as reconciling agents of God’s redemptive work.” Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 47. 87 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 60 88 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 60–63. 89 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 65. 90 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 65–66. 91 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 92.

122 in, and differentiated engagement with, the community’s events and meanings, continues” throughout the personal and communal lives of all Christians.92 Since a faith pilgrimage is complex, a dynamic interplay rather than a linear or sequential progression from one stage to another, if people, no matter what their age, lose this dynamic pattern by ignoring or trying to divorce themselves from childlikeness, they will not be able to pursue a mature faith.93 As

Jerome Berryman puts it, Foster recognizes that it is naïve to think that we can step outside our accumulated years and experiences, or that adults can pretend to be children while in reality remaining adults.94 What Foster emphasizes with childlikeness in Christian identity is receiving the events and relationships of life with open hands as a sign of maturity.95 Foster’s understanding of maturity is supported by Berryman, who also argues that “authentic child/adult maturity … is not a dichotomy of pretense [but] a paradoxical ‘state,’ which is both a way of being in the world and a kind of consciousness of God’s kingdom. It is a place, both personal and political, where one’s maturity is not limited by cultural norms or chronological age.”96 While

Foster’s insistence on childlikeness is not so clearly evident in his later works, it is important to revisit the concept at this point in order to explore the vantage point of all ages.

Compared to Nelson and Westerhoff, Foster’s event-centered congregational education model is the most evolved of the socialization/enculturation approaches in terms of his understanding of people of all ages as active and reflective participants; in terms of the integration of engagement in ecclesial events (formation); and in terms of empowering participants to reflect critically on the meaning of their engagement in events (education). His

92 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 75. 93 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 92. 94 Berryman, Becoming like a Child, chap. 1, sec. 2, Kindle. 95 Foster, Teaching in the Community of Faith, 93-94. 96 Berryman, Becoming like a Child, chap. 1, sec. 2, Kindle.

123 focus on children’s agency in the faith community and in pedagogical practices does not go further than his early work, however, and his model still requires a concrete explanation of how children participate in and share with other generations their reflection on the meaning of personal and communal learning in light of the Christian stories and tradition.

I have examined foundational theories of intergenerational Christian education focusing on Nelson, Westerhoff, and Foster. I now explore current intergenerational Christian education theories to find out how they can shed light on intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations, both in theory and practice.

2.2. Current Intergenerational Christian Education Models: 1988-Present

In this section I analyze three intergenerational Christian education models developed since the late 1980s: James White’s Intergenerational Religious Education (IGRE), Mariette

Martineau, Joan Weber, and Leif Kehrwald’s Intergenerational Faith Formation (IGFF), and

Holly Allen and Christian Ross’ Intergenerational Christian Formation (IGCF). Rooted heavily in socialization/enculturation approaches, each model has a different theoretical and pedagogical emphasis arising from different theological backgrounds. Here I categorize the models into three groups according to these emphases: program-based, community-oriented, and ministry-oriented models. I focus on their unique relational and pedagogical aspects, paying special attention to their understanding of the role and agency of children.

2.2.1. Program-based Model: Intergenerational Religious Education (IGRE)

124

In 1988 James White proposed a program-based model of intergenerational religious education (hereafter IGRE).97 White titled his proposal the “Total Parish Paradigm,” which refers to the entire congregation working to facilitate an intergenerational religious lifestyle for the fulfillment of God, the world, and themselves.98 By emphasizing a faith lifestyle that creates wholeness in the faith community, he insists that what is learned in religious education is not just cognitive knowledge, but includes the physical, emotional, and the rational pursuit of a faith-full holistic lifestyle in intergenerational relationships.99 White argues that a faith lifestyle is promoted through three life areas involving formal programs and informal actions and reactions: worship-education life (rituals and formal education), community life (communal and informal relationship and learning programs), and institutional life (administration, seasonal events, and mission/evangelism/evaluation).100 To facilitate a holistic religious lifestyle, White argues for the total parish paradigm, which is a holistic integration of six basic intergenerational programs: family group, weekly class, workshop/event, worship service, worship-education program, and all-congregational camp.101 He argues that each person at any age is or can be helped in their

“being and becoming” through cross-age experiences.102 Holly Catterton Allen points out that

97 White examines a wide range of social science and developmental theories, including those of Margaret Mead, Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and James Fowler. He pays attention to various issues from Christian education theories in developing his intergenerational model: Christian nurture and socialization (Nelson, Westerhoff), conscientization (Paulo Freire, Thomas Groome), facilitational environment (James Michael Lee), and worship, to name a few. While his examination of an extremely wide range of social sciences and developmental theories seems understandable because of the complexity of developing an intergenerational theory, as VanderVen points out such an attempt may make Christian educators hesitant to adopt his approach because they are overwhelmed about where to begin. 98 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 4–11, 15. 99 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 176. 100 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 164–171. 101 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 159. White points out criteria employed by other educators to describe their models such as the place of occurrence, the ages involved, the curriculum materials used, the content to be covered, the groups targeted, and the method or style of the programs. I find it is helpful to reconsider not only White’s primary criteria, which are time and intensity, but also those other criteria, in designing a new model of intergenerational Christian education for the congregation. 102 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 161–162, 126.

125

White uses the term education far more broadly than it is typically understood.103 She notes that the term experiences connotes White’s meaning more accurately than education in the narrower classroom sense.

An important feature of White’s model is the four-stage intergenerational learning process, which he calls “patterns for IGRE relationship.” White outlines the learning process in his definition of intergenerational religious education as follows: “Two or more different age groups of people in a religious community together learning/growing/living in faith through in- common-experiences, parallel-learning, contributive-occasions, and interactive-sharing” (italics added).104 White draws on Westerhoff to explain these four patterns as a co-pilgrimage of learning, growing, and living.105 In this co-pilgrimage, cognitive, affective, and lifestyle developments occur through the four patterns of most IGRE models and practices.

The first phase is in-common experiences. Intergenerational religious education begins by providing a multigenerational experience of a theme that all the generations share together. The focus of this phase is different ages having an experience in-common at the same time and place in a similar way, and in many cases, in less verbal and more observatory ways.106 Interestingly,

White maintains that the in-common experiences mostly remain at the “concrete operational level,” which is the third stage in Piaget’s developmental theory, in terms of participation in physical and concrete experiences. This means that the different generations do not perceive or experience the thing identically, but differently and uniquely. What White stresses is that this in-

103 Holly Catterton Allen, “Bringing the Generations Together: Support from Learning Theory,” Christian Education Journal 2.2 (Fall 2005): 321. 104 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 18. 105 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 26. Among the recent literature on Christian education, Mary Elizabeth Mullino Moore also understands pedagogy, or teaching, as a journey with others in a learning community: “an act of walking with, sharing with, acting with, remembering with, and constructing meaning with people in a learning community.” Mary Elizabeth Mullino Moore, Teaching as a Sacramental Act (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2004), 13. 106 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 26–27.

126 common experience is a starting point for learning together in a faith community, from which other phases of relationship are built.

The second phase is parallel learning. In this phase, different generations work on the same topic or project, but are separated in order to do the work in different ways according to their development, interests, or skill levels.107 According to White, this differentiated working out, which relies on their own specific attributes, enables them to participate in learning in the best way. Recognizing a criticism of IGRE, which is its tendency toward the vantage point of a specific age, usually that of children, and not that of all ages, as in Foster,108 White argues that if the congregation does not provide such a separated space for each generation to learn based on developmental capabilities, i.e., parallel learning, “faith lifestyle growth is unduly minimized.”109

In the third phase of contributive-occasions, different age groups come together in order to share what they have previously learned or created. White notes that this joining or rejoining becomes a contributive-occasion when “separated pieces” of a whole are added together “for everyone’s benefit.”110 By comparison with in-common-experiences, which are less verbal and more observatory, this phase in the learning process is “less observatory and more participatory.”

White points out that “by engaging ‘in mutual contribution’ to one another, [intergenerational] learners discover that the educational whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”111

The fourth phase in IGRE relationships is interactive-sharing. Here participants have an interpersonal exchange about what they learned, thought, or felt in the previous phases. White notes that this phase is distinctive, because while the contributive-occasions phase encourages

107 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 27. 108 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 27. 109 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 27. 110 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 28. 111 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 28.

127 participants to gather and explore what they learned and experienced, this phase facilitates a

“crossing over” to incorporate another’s perspective into one’s own. The fourth phase is crucial for at least two reasons. First, everyone in a congregation with different age groups is invited to be open to others, regardless of age or other attributes. Second, all participants, including children, youth, and adults, become discrete agents sharing what they have learned and interpreting what they have reflected.

White’s view of the multiple dimensions of learning through the four patterns of relationship is well reflected in the worship-education program, one of six programs that intentionally integrates worship and education. It typically brings all ages together for worship, separates younger people from adults for activities in different settings, and finally brings them back together for celebration or mutual sharing. White assesses this model as the best way to promote “holistic learning,” which attempts to touch whole persons in multiple dimensions of their lives, encompassing cognitive, affective, psychomotor, social, and spiritual aspects.112 As he points out in the worship-education program, unlike Westerhoff he does not ignore the defects of classroom learning, because he believes that intergenerational religious education must consider various learning styles for different generations.

I now analyze the place of children in White’s IGCE model. He does not offer a nuanced theological view on children as his three precursors do, but basically follows the Judeo-Christian tradition and understands children as people of God, curious learners, and gifts. He also seems to see them as relational, becoming, loving, creating, and enjoying beings based on a process theological view, even though he does not specify children in his theological description of human beings.113

112 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 52. 113 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 81–87.

128

When it comes the pedagogical aspect of his view on children, I find that White’s model needs to be challenged in several ways. First of all, he follows the classic Piagetian tradition, especially Roland Goldman’s religious thinking theory, which argues that the cognitive capability of children before ages twelve to thirteen is so limited that religious educators should not provide them with any abstract articulation of the faith as part of religious instruction.114

However, as I found in chapter two, Goldman’s perspective, which is rooted in classic Piagetian theories, is criticized by many religious educators and cognitive developmentalists because his methods do not give children “the best chance to show their understanding.”115 White’s view of children’s limited cognitive capabilities is evident when he refers to significant cognitive learning as one of the goals of intergenerational Christian education. He points out that the largest problem in selecting significant cognitive learning topics in IGRE is the difficulty making certain topics meaningful for people of all ages. While it is true that the concerns of children, teenagers, and adults may not coalesce on any one subject, or that they may show unequal interest therein, such themes or topics are at times chosen by educators who have a limited view of children, and who attempt to avoid the serious issues that children experience in their personal and communal lives, but that are not addressed or answered by educators or adult members.

Such a problem also can be found in White’s intergenerational learning process and worship-education model. White attempts to give children’s participation in and contribution to the intergenerational learning patterns a positive sense, but I wonder what he means by parallel- learning. On the one hand, White rightly stresses shared experience between generations in

114 Ronald Goldman, Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964). White even notes that “before this critical age [of thirteen] any abstract articulation of the faith will fall on deaf ears.” White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 107. 115 Rebecca Nye, Sara Savage, and Fraser Watts, Psychology for Christian ministry (New York: Routledge, 2003), 87-88; Johnson and Boyatzis, “Cognitive-Cultural Foundations,” 214; Justin L. Barrett and Rebekah A. Richert, “Anthropomorphism or Preparedness? Exploring Children's God Concepts,” Review of Religious Research 44, no. 3 (Mar 2003): 302.

129 congregational learning, as seen in his in-common experience and interactive-sharing. On the other hand, I wonder how people of all ages can share their lived experiences, which often requires more time and secure space than White proposes. Further, one may be misled by his contention that “faith lifestyle growth is unduly minimized” if people of all ages do not have a separate space for further elaboration of learning. White is correct in emphasizing reciprocal learning between generations, and in criticizing the fact that many religious education theories focus substantially on how learning plays “from older-to-younger” and do not consider learning from children.116 However, in order to practice mutual learning in intergenerational learning,

White’s model needs to be further challenged in the area of adult openness to learning from young people through sharing with them in a place where they can listen to and reflect on the

Christian stories together.

2.2.2. Community-oriented Model: Intergenerational Faith Formation (IGFF)

Mariette Martineau, Joan Weber, and Leif Kehrwald have developed an approach of intergenerational faith formation (hereafter IGFF). 117 This IGFF is an event-centered approach from a Roman Catholic perspective, although also indebted to those Protestant education

116 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 135. 117 Martineau and her colleagues’ intergenerational learning model was developed as a part of the Generations of Faith project. In 2005, Catholic religious educators at the Center for Ministry Development launched a project funded by the Lilly Endowment to provide a faith formation model for intergenerational parishes. They have since updated the project after undertaking qualitative research with Catholic and Protestant congregations in North America. John Roberto, the project coordinator, does not appear as co-author of the IGFF model, but his perspective and interests in intergenerational faith formation are broadly found in the resource manuals and several articles related to the IGFF model. Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 5, 143. For related resources, see John Roberto, Generations of Faith, Resource Manual: Lifelong Faith Formation for the Whole Parish Community (New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2005); Becoming a Church of Lifelong Learners: The Generations of Faith Sourcebook (New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2006).

130 theorists who advocate the faith community/enculturation approach,118 especially Foster’s event- centered education and White’s IGRE model. Unlike White or Foster, however, the IGFF model focuses solely on the intergenerational learning process, rather than the entire ministry, although it does not ignore the relation to other aspects of ecclesial life.

The authors’ interest in intergenerational learning is well expressed in their foundational question: “With respect to faith formation, how do children, adolescents, even adults identify with and integrate into the faith community when their learning is separate and segmented?”(italics original).119 Attempting to overcome both the schooling paradigm and traditional catechesis model, the authors argue that the traditional education pendulum has swung too far towards the developmental side in crediting the developmental needs, concerns and tasks of each generation to the exclusion of intergenerational learning. They contend that intergenerational learning needs to reflect the nature and quality of ordinary living, since people learn from the way they live in their homes, churches, and communities.120 Congregations need to become more relational, communal, and familial, and for this reason, the authors emphasize the common experiences and learning styles of all ages rather than their different developmental characteristics, and they see the events of church life as a curriculum for all ages.

An important point about the common learning styles that they emphasize is the ability of people of all ages to reflect: “the ability to stop, look, and listen to the moment just experienced or about to be experienced.”121 Here they regard reflection as linking human experience to the

Christian message, arguing that “reflection is a lost art in our Christian communities,” and “an

118 In Becoming a Church of Lifelong Learners, which is sourcebook of the Generations of Faith and a theoretical foundation for IGFF, Roberto notes that this project is heavily indebted to three educational theorists who advocate the faith community approach: Nelson, Westerhoff, and Foster. Roberto, Lifelong Lerner, 30-39. 119 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 1. 120 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 1. 121 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 46.

131 art that needs learning and practicing across the generations” if we are to connect to our identity as disciples.122 Their insistence on intergenerational reflection is more remarkable: “All experience is valid, important, and rich with meaning and connections. It does not matter if it is the experience of a four-year-old or a seventy-year-old, God is not confined by the age restrictions we have sought to place on learners in our age-segregated world.”123

Starting with the concept of event-centered intergenerational learning, the authors attempt to integrate catechetical factors inherited from the Christian tradition with Foster’s educational movements. They take the axiom Lex orandi, lex credenda as the main principle for learning, which they interpret as “the law of praying establishes the law of belief.” They point out that church belief (lex credendi) expressed through the liturgical rites (lex orandi) has a fundamental relation to liturgical theology as well as forming the central part of the catechism. They then add a term, lex vivendi, which covers the non-liturgical practice of Christian life, including service to others, work for justice and peace, study and reflection, and activities that promote the building up of the Christian community, all of which have an inherent connection to both the church’s beliefs and its liturgy.124 They argue that one of the tasks of catechesis is to integrate liturgy, belief, and practice for all generations. This task proceeds from the deepening knowledge of the practices of Christian life that comes from participating in liturgy. Starting from either of the other two—participating or practicing—should lead to the same result. While this circular movement is basically the same as the “movements” referred to by Foster, here an event- centered, intergenerational curriculum in the faith community can have at least three different starting points.125

122 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 46. 123 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 47. 124 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 27–28. 125 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 30–31.

132

The IGFF approach focuses mainly on intergenerational catechesis, while White’s approach encompasses broad intergenerational religious experience. By comparison with

White’s four patterns for IGRE relationships, the IGFF process includes five key elements : 1) gathering and opening prayer, 2) all-ages learning experience, 3) in-depth learning experience, 4) sharing learning reflections and home application, and 5) a closing prayer service.126 It appears similar to White’s model, but while the latter regards the process as linear, the former depicts the learning flow as spiral or “a choreographed dance.” 127

According to Martineau and her colleagues, the five elements are as follows:128 first, gathering and opening prayers play an important role in welcoming different-aged learners with hospitality and anticipation. Hospitality is crucial, because it provides people of all ages with a secure space to learn and share, trust and inquire throughout the entire intergenerational learning process. Through this hospitable welcoming, all participants feel safe and comfortable and look forward to what they will learn. Second, all-ages learning experience is closely akin to the in- common experiences in White’s IRGE. This pattern provides participants with a common experience, engaging them in the topic of the session, using various methods and activities, such as drama, games, storytelling, and art projects, to name a few. Third, in-depth learning experience is a more developed form of the parallel learning in White’s IRGE. While the latter simply divides learning groups by ages and based on cognitive capabilities, the IGFF proposes three primary learning formats for in-depth learning experiences: age group, whole group, and

126 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 70. In the original model, and without giving any reason, they do not include the first element of gathering and opening prayer in the learning process. I find a clue for this omission in their understanding of lifelong faith formation as integrated catechesis. It must include formation through welcoming to and participation in the life of the faith community and the development of a life of prayer in the intergenerational learning process, two aspects connected to the first and second movements. Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 68–69. 127 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 72–73. 128 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 70–78.

133 learning activity centers. The age group provides parallel, age-appropriate, simultaneous learning for groups, focusing on the same topic. The whole group format provides a series of facilitated learning activities for everyone at the same time, using intergenerational or age-specific small groups or table groups. The learning activity center format provides structured intergenerational and age-specific learning activities at a variety of stations or centers in a common area. Next, in sharing learning reflections and home application, participants gather and share what they have learned, and prepare to apply their learning to daily life by crafting a concrete action plan. In this phase, people of all ages participate in reflection through which they are encouraged to integrate what they have learned into their lives. Lastly, the closing prayer service wraps up the intergenerational learning. Given the authors depict this model as a choregraphed dance, the closing prayer does not just mean the “end” of a classroom instruction, but signifies a bridge for lifelong and continuous faith formation in the events of church life.129 To sum up, the IGFF approach has a distinctive feature in that it understands intergenerational learning as the event- centered formation of the faith community, rather than instruction or teaching. In particular, by placing learning activities between the opening and closing prayers, which are also regarded as crucial, the theorists encourage participants to see that the whole learning process is integrated into all aspects of parish life.

The IGFF is distinguished from other intergenerational approaches in its understanding of children and their place and role, because it does not place much emphasis on children’s developmental differences from adults, but looks instead at the way people of all ages learn in communal life. While they do not ignore developmental issues, as seen in in-depth learning experience phase, the IGFF model nevertheless considers children as active participants and

129 Martineau, Weber, and Kehrwald, Intergenerational Faith Formation, 3.

134 learners rather than passive and reluctant ones. It is remarkable that in their emphasis on reflection, the authors view children as people who can link their new learning experiences with the Christian message even if they do not provide a full explanation. This point challenges

Korean congregations with children to think about their intergenerational practices in a different way.

2.2.3. Ministry-Oriented Model: Intergenerational Christian Formation (IGCF)

Most recently, Holly Catterton Allen and Christine Lawton Ross have proposed an intergenerational Christian formation model (hereafter IGCF) drawing on the term intergenerationality, which has been appearing widely in Christian education and congregational ministry since the 2000s. 130 From an evangelical theological background, the educators build their theoretical foundation on White and Harkness’s definitions of intergenerationality.131

Accepting the basic premise that “intergenerational faith experiences uniquely nurture spiritual growth and development in both adults and children,” Allen and Ross argue that intergenerationality enables the whole faith community to benefit from each individual’s God- given gifts, and enables believers to fully live out being the body of Christ and the family of faith.132

130 There is another remarkable article that provides a selected annotated bibliography on intergenerational Christian education in North America since 2001. See Faye E. Chechowich, “Intergenerational Ministry: A Review of Selected Publications Since 2001,” Christian Education Journal 9, no. 1 (March 2012): 182–193. 131 Allen and Ross provide a comprehensive review of the literature on intergenerational Christian education and ministry published between the 1970s and 2012.They point out that there have been changes in the phrase intergenerational Christian education since the 1960s. While they build their theoretical foundation on the work of intergenerational Christian educators, they choose to use the phrase intergenerational Christian formation to distinguish it from other Christian practices and education. Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Education, 19–20. 132 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation, 47.

135

Allen and Ross do not develop an intergenerational learning model as White and

Martineau and her colleagues do, but instead identify six contexts for intergenerational Christian formation practice. These are intergenerational worship, intergenerational learning experience, intergenerational story sharing, intergenerational service and missions, intergenerational small groups, and cross-generational relationship in multicultural churches. For this reason, the approach may be categorized as ministry-oriented rather than education-based in terms of considering all aspects of ministry rather than limiting to educational ministry.133 Allen and Ross are especially concerned to create “a culture of intergenerationality” in the faith community, suggesting two levels where intergenerationality can be implemented: the leadership level and the congregational level. The first level is the leadership level, where Allen and Ross suggest the need for a holistic reorientation toward an intergenerational culture with congregational leaders convinced about intergenerational values and benefits (informational/cognitive); captured by love and passion for those for whom they care (spiritual/affective); and provided with intergenerational experiences in intentionally designed settings, such as training and retreats

(experiential/behavioral).134 The second level for implementation of intergenerationality is the congregational level. While the holistic process needs to be implemented with the whole congregation in a uniform way, it should be done strategically and prayerfully, with consideration for the reality of the community.135

One of the contributions of Allen and Ross to this discussion is to draw on various theories and methodologies to build not only on biblical and theological foundations, but also on critical social sciences that were not drawn on in the past, or were only partially so, such as

133 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation, 178. 134 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Education, 180–184. 135 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Education, 185–186.

136 social learning theories, gerontology, generational theory, and empirical research. It is particularly worth noting how they integrate their intergenerational approach with a trinitarian theology, a social-cultural learning theory, and with gerontology. First, Allen and Ross claim that since God exists in community (Gen 1:26) and creates us in his image, we are to reflect this communal nature. In other words, the relationship that exists among the members of the Trinity is to be reflected in the body of Christ, which is intergenerational, in similar attitudes of love, connectedness, honor and respect.136 Second, they acknowledge that social-cultural theory places a heavier emphasis on the social interaction of the learning environment than do other learning theories. They pay special attention to Russian educationist, Lev Vygotsky, who explains using the notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) that persons have to experience concepts if they are to learn them. People need to negotiate the meaning of concepts socially, in an authentic, complex learning environment, in this case an authentic intergenerational Christian community.137 Third, Allen and Ross find an intersection between intergenerationality and gerontology. The latter field of study seeks ways for the burgeoning population of seniors to be seen as resources and assets. It takes account of the possible impact of intergenerational programs on individuals and communities. As gerontological studies show, intergenerational interactions have a positive effect on both the older and younger populations involved. Allen and

Ross argue that creating intentional opportunities for them to share stories or to create something together can be reciprocally beneficial and can bless the whole body of Christ.138 Given this,

Allen and Ross situate their intergenerational Christian formation theory in the context of an age-

136 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation, 111. 137 See Lev S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language, trans. Alex Kozulin, revised ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986). 138 Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation, 141.

137 segregated culture that has been produced by social, cultural, developmental, and ecclesial changes and challenges in the twenty-first century.

Allen and Ross seem to focus less on children in the IGFF ministry-oriented model than their precursors. I find at least two reasons for this in relation to their approach. The first is their emphasis on formation. Allen and Ross contend that their focus as an intergenerational approach moves from a traditional “Christian education” model to a “faith formation” and “ministry” model, much as Martineau and her colleagues do in the IGFF approach. This leads them to place more stress on the role of worship and intergenerational relationship than on pedagogical and cognitive aspects. The second reason is related to their methodology. Their exposure to recent disciplines such as gerontology and situated learning theories for the theoretical foundations of the IGCF model leads them to examine intergenerational interaction and relationships, for example, those between children and the elderly, apprentices and mentors. While this new approach contributes to finding new foci for intergenerational ministry, Allen and Ross nevertheless seem to regard children as learners and receivers and not as active participants and agents. Also, while they refer to Martineau’s IGFF model, they barely consider the role of reflection and children’s participation.

3. Evaluation of Socialization Models: Contributions and Limitations

So far I have analyzed socialization models of intergenerational Christian education theories focusing on two aspects: (1) the relational aspect: intergenerational relationships and interactions; and (2) the pedagogical aspect: cross-age interactive teaching/learning processes. I now identify the contributions and limitations of these theories by asking two critical questions:

Does this model invite people of all ages to intergenerational Christian education and recognize

138 them fully as participants and agents? Does this model sufficiently encourage people of all ages to forge Christian identity, while also empowering them to live Christian lives and values in the wider community? I draw on my own assessment criteria in relation to children’s being and agency as well as children’s spiritual awareness, as examined in chapter one and two. The purpose of this evaluation is to find an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children.

3.1. Relational Issue: Insufficient Partnership in the Faith Community

First, all the socialization/enculturation models examined in this chapter agree that

Christian education is and should fundamentally be about the intergenerational pursuit of a true community of faith. Each model has its unique emphases and proposes particular intergenerational practices and learning processes, but they are tied together by a common reaction against the traditional educational paradigm, which in congregational education is a schooling/instruction paradigm. They also agree that intergenerational Christian education is an intentional activity through which both individual and community are formed in faith. As in my exploration of biblical metaphors of intergenerationality—one body, all people as prophets, and radical welcome—they also all find a foundation for intergenerationality in Christian Scripture and theology: for example, a community of believers (Nelson), the reign of God (Westerhoff), and the body of Christ (Foster).

However, socialization theories have several problems in terms of their ambiguous view of reciprocal intergenerational relationships in congregational education, and their ambivalent attitudes to bringing people of all ages together as equal participants. The former is representatively found in Nelson and Westerhoff’s models: Nelson’s view of the congregation as

139 a community of believers is supposed to include people of all ages as one body in Christ and yet in his model children are actually understood as “not-yet-believers” and as socializees who need to be nurtured and educated by qualified socializers (well-trained Christian parents and teachers).

While his emphasis on Christian nurture and formation for children is still valuable, Nelson’s unidirectional intergenerational relationships needs to be challenged with a constructive view of children and their mutual relationship with caregivers, as I examined in chapter one.

This problem is also found in Westerhoff’s understanding of intergenerational relationships. When Westerhoff depicts intergenerational interaction among three generations— the generations of memory, present, and vision—his metaphorical understanding is ambiguous and trichotomized as a separated past, present, and future. As Thomas Groome argues, such an understanding predominates in the theory and practice of education.139 It can mislead us into seeing each generation in a conventional way, especially in a culture such as Korea where people consider children as future potential, too often placing them on the periphery of the congregation and its pedagogical practices because they are considered unprepared and immature. The understanding of the second generation (as the present) may be also problematic. If a faith community only sees the second generation as the generation of the present regarding young people only as one who will bloom in the future, children may not be seen as present spiritual and pedagogical agents in the faith community, in the way that middle-aged adults are. However, as Jensen and Miller-McLemore put it, children are not merely potential, but are also capable by the grace of God of transmitting the truth through their graceful existence and gifts of imagination, as the theologies of children examined in chapter one insist. In the same vein, if the elderly are supposed to be the generation of memory in a conventional way, we may lose the

139 Thomas Groome, Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent (Allen, TX: Thomas More, 1998), 218.

140 opportunity to see them as the generation of vision, as in the eschatological visions in Joel and

Acts explored in chapter one. Another question may be raised about whether Westerhoff’s argument for children as learners and teachers is reflected in his image of a co-pilgrimage with adults toward their owned faith. While Westerhoff explains that each style of faith, including

“affiliative faith,” which is supposed to begin around childhood and early adolescence, is like a complete and whole tree, it seems that the mutual influence begins with the “searching faith” phase, which is the third phase beginning around mid-adolescence, and thus he reserves children’s agency and mutual influence for that phases. Although I appreciate his emphasis on the significance of belongingness, affection, and a sense of authority in relation to the Christian stories, I cannot but think his explanation inconsistent.

Another problem relates to the ambivalent attitude towards bringing people of all ages as active agents into the faith community. While the socialization/enculturation models are concerned about inviting and caring for the marginalized in the faith community, many do not take seriously their agency in intergenerational relationships, especially the agency of children.

Likewise, while they may argue for the importance of mutual interactions in intergenerational learning, I find that not all theorists take children’s spiritual and moral agency seriously. Some of the education theorists examined above tend to undermine children’s role in spiritual and moral agency: Nelson, for example. For nuanced insight into intergenerational mutuality and children’s agency, it is helpful to learn from theologies of children. For example, as examined in chapter one, Miller-McLemore argues that viewing children as spiritual agents includes seeing them as

God’s representatives, possessing the potential for significant impact upon adults.140 In this sense, to create a fully integrative approach, children need to be welcomed into the community

140 Miller-McLemore, Let The Children Come, 138.

141 as active spiritual participants who are ends in themselves, instead of being seen as passive attendees in congregational life.

3.2. Pedagogical Issue: Devaluation of Critical Reflection by People of All Ages

The socialization/enculturation models examined above focus on the formation of

Christian faith, identity, character, and lifestyle for people of all ages, mainly through formative practices and events in the faith community. As Jack Seymour points out, many people have learned the faith, reflected on its meaning for their lives, and discovered ways of living in faith communities, and this in a modern context where life and faith are not integrated.141 As seen in the examination of current intergenerational models, each one encourages people of all ages to participate in formative practices for intergenerational learning in various ways, for example, by program (IGRE), through community (IGFF), or via ministry (IGCF) approaches.

However, the socialization models as frameworks for intergenerational Christian education have two problems in the way they devalue critical reflection. First, socialization models, especially current ones, tend to undermine the role of critical reflection in educational learning. Robert O’Gorman points out that community education has service, reflection, and communion as its goals and methods.142 Although the socialization/enculturation models emerged as a reaction against a schooling/instruction paradigm, some theorists, including Nelson and Foster, consider critical reflection crucial in intergenerational congregational education: the former takes it as a form of interpretation, while the latter includes the process of meaning- making in education as a crucial task of congregational education, even though he does not fully

141 Jack L. Seymour, “Approaches to Christian Education,” in Mapping Christian Education: Approaches to Congregational Learning (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), 12. 142 Robert O’Gorman, “The Faith Community,” in Mapping Christian Education: Approaches to Congregational Learning (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), 50.

142 develop the idea of children’s participation therein. However, Westerhoff and current intergenerational education models, except for IGFF, do not emphasize the significance of the reflective process sufficiently (Westerhoff) or even undermine it (IGCF). For example,

Westerhoff, Allen and Ross seem to pay special attention to intergenerational faith formation, thereby reducing the role of “education” and reflection, even though the former has recently taken children’s spiritual agency seriously.

The second problem is the silence about children’s participation in critical reflection in the socialization/enculturation models. Foster, for example, argues critical reflection is a crucial process in event-centered educational movements for “children, youth, and adults,” yet he does not explain how children participate in the reflective process. Instead, the socialization/enculturation models focus on what and how the child learns as a receiver in a conventional way, and seem less focused on what and how they can teach and share as an active educational agent. This point is also found in most of the models examined (e.g., Nelson’s unidirectional religious socialization, and White’s parallel learning). The reason is that their approaches are very much based in developmental theories, especially that of Jean Piaget for cognitive development and of James Fowler for faith development. Only a few approaches partially consider children’s reflective capabilities and their spiritual questing (e.g., Foster and the IGFF model). Of course, drawing on developmental theories for intergenerational Christian education still has its merits and needs to be considered when designing educational events and practices. However, as examined in chapter two, if one takes a close look at children’s spiritual ability to making meaning and think reflectively in their own ways, as studies on children’s spiritual cognition show, intergenerational Christian education may be challenged to welcome children’s agency in pedagogical practices in a more inclusive way.

143

In this chapter I have analyzed socialization/enculturation models of intergenerational

Christian education theories. From the analysis it is evident that the faith community is the primary venue for nurturing people of all ages as disciples through all the events of the church.

However, in following the socialization/enculturation approach without serious consideration of children’s active participation and agency, Korean congregations may fail, not only in welcoming people of all ages to the faith community as one body in Christ, but also in empowering them to participate in forming Christian identity and living their faith in the community and the world.

To this end, chapter four reconsiders the role of critical reflection in intergenerational

Christian education with children. I take a close look at Thomas Groome’s understanding of critical reflection as found in his dialogical approach to shared Christian praxis, as well as in his recent interest in total community catechesis, examining in particular how he explains the participation of children therein.

Chapter 4 The Potential of a Critical Reflective Pedagogy for Intergenerational Christian Education

This chapter explores the potential of critical reflection for intergenerational Christian education with children. Nurturing a holistic Christian faith, and inviting people of all ages to participate in such a faith in an intentional and inclusive way, requires both socialization and critical reflective pedagogy. Christian religious educator Thomas Groome is one who takes this double-sided task seriously in proposing a dialectical approach to Christian education he calls shared Christian praxis. His intention is to develop a synthetic approach integrating socialization and intentional Christian education by placing great emphasis on critical consciousness and the agency of people of all ages. While his approach is often recognized as an instruction-based framework, with less emphasis on the central role of the community in faith formation,1 it is remarkable that Groome now takes seriously the notion of the entire community functioning as

Christian educators, which paradigm he calls “total community catechesis,” an approach that attempts to integrate socialization/enculturation and reflective education. I thus find it helpful to begin this chapter by reviewing Groome’s total community catechesis paradigm before moving to the epistemic foundation of shared Christian praxis that underpins children’s engagement in the reflective educational event. Since a comprehensive examination of shared praxis is beyond the scope of the present study, I focus on selected works by Groome as follows: Christian

1 For example, among three approaches to Christian learning—community and prayer (“community-of- faith approach”), study (“instructional-approach”), and service (“missional-approach”), Jack Seymour categorizes Groome’s approach in the “study” category. Seymour, Teaching the Way of Jesus, 99–100.

144

145

Religious Education (1980), Sharing Faith (1991), Educating for Life (1998), and Will There Be

Faith? (2011) as well as several articles and chapters in edited books.2

1. Total Community Catechesis

1.1. Thomas Groome: Reflective-Relational Faith Education Approach3

Catholic religious educator Thomas Groome proposes a praxis-based, dialogical approach to Christian religious education called “shared Christian praxis” in Christian Religious

Education, published in 1980. In that book, he identifies the reign of God, praxis-based Christian faith, and liberation, as major goals of Christian religious education, for which he draws on liberation theology, Western epistemology, critical theories and pedagogy, and development theories. Then, in 1991, he published Sharing Faith, which takes an ontological and relational turn in epistemology and in pedagogical movements, which he calls “epistemic ontology,” that is, the shared Christian praxis approach. In that work, he attempts to show how shared praxis works in other practical theological areas, such as ministry, liturgy, preaching, social ministry, and pastoral counseling.

Later Groome proposes a broader, community-based approach called “total community catechesis,” which regards the entire community—congregation,4 family, and religious school—

2 Thomas H. Groome, Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1980); Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry (New York: Harper, 1991); Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998); Will There Be Faith? A New Vision for Educating and Growing Disciples (New York: HarperOne, 2011). 3 I describe Groome’s approach as “reflective-relational” because of its primary emphasis on critical consciousness and reflection in faith education, while at the same time appreciating socialization/enculturation as significant. The reason for my description will be explained in detail in the last part of this chapter, as a comparison with my proposal for a “relational-reflective” approach detailed in chapter five. 4 In my dissertation, following my Protestant practice, I use the term “congregation” instead of parish to indicate a local church, unless I quote directly from Groome or note a Catholic context.

146 as an effective religious educator. This approach was introduced first in an article in 1990,5 and is later comprehensively expressed in Will There Be Faith? in 2011. This great emphasis on community-based education seems to reflect Groome’s wish to harmonize the dichotomized educational approaches of socialization/enculturation and religious education, the latter being much emphasized in his early works. Regarding the relationship between shared praxis and total community catechesis, Groome argues that “a shared praxis approach is effective and appropriate for both religious education, with more emphasis on scholarly study, and for catechesis, with more emphasis on faith formation.”6

In Groome’s dialectical approach, critical reflection plays a central role in connecting participants’ lived faith with the Christian story and vision through dialogue. What one may find intriguing in this approach is that not only adults, but also young children, can participate in the reflective pedagogical event, albeit reflection with concrete language. While those such as Foster and the IGFF model, in advocating socialization/enculturation, also consider the importance of children’s participation in critical reflection, the idea is not so much developed as it is in

Groome, who examines both theological and developmental aspects of children’s capacity for critical reflection. Groome notes that the experience of writing two basal religious curricula for children based on shared praxis approach ranks among his best learning experiences.7 Despite his

5 Groome notes that the total community catechesis paradigm was introduced first in “Parish as Catechist” in Church 6, no. 3 (Fall 1990). Since writing an article in 2002 he has used the term more frequently in public. Thomas H. Groome, “Total Catechetical Education,” in Religious Education of Boys and Girls, ed. Werner G. Jeanrond and List S. Cahill (London: SCM Press, 2002). Also see “Total Catechesis/Religious Education: A Vision for Now and Always,” in Horizons & Hope: The Future of Religious Education, ed. Thomas H. Groome and Harold D. Horell (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003); “Handing on the Faith: The Need for Total Catechetical Education,” in Handing on the Faith: The Church’s Mission and Challenge, ed. Robert P. Imbelli (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2006). 6 Thomas Groome, “A Shared Praxis Approach to Religious Education,” in International Handbook of the Religious Moral, and Spiritual Dimensions in Education, eds. Marian de Souza et al. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007), 766. 7 Thomas H. Groome, “Traces That Remain: From Life to Faith to Life,” Religious Education 113, no. 2 (Mar 2018): 153.

147 concern for children’s participation in the shared praxis approach, this point is rarely recognized by intergenerational Christian education theorists or in the literature of children’s ministry.8

1.2. Groome’s Evaluation of Christian Socialization/Enculturation

When exploring Groome’s evaluation of Christian socialization, it is important to note how he understands a sociocultural context and its challenges. Groome analyzes the world in which we live under three aspects: secularization, individualism, and postmodernism. He argues that living in a secularized and postmodern society where religious practice has fallen off and the sociocultural conditions discourage religious faith, Christians are persuaded to find their own way in light of a radical “relativism” as well as in the absence of a Christian “metanarrative.”9

Given this sociocultural context, Groome argues that socialization alone is not sufficient to encourage the maturation in faith of participants, because it does not encourage critical and creative thinking to promote intentionally a dialectic between individual Christians and the faith community, and between the faith community and the sociocultural context, beyond their natural ability for interaction, or what he calls “the inevitable dialectic.” He criticizes attempts to separate critical education from a socialization/enculturation approach, contending that those who advocate the socialization/enculturation approach give little place to the role of critical

8 In the literature on intergenerational Christian education and children’s ministry, only a few works refer to how Groome’s approach may operate in children’s faith formation: e.g., Scottie May et al., Children Matter: Celebrating Their Place in the Church, Family, and Community (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005). The authors, who are from an evangelical background, refer to Groome’s Christian Religious Education in two chapters on children’s participation in the faith community and worship, but the references are very brief and also are not directly related to teaching/learning events. May et al., Children Matter, 144, 229. I assume that there are at least three reasons for the scarcity of references in the literature. The first may be related to the theological backgrounds and traditions on which intergenerational Christian education theories are built, i.e., differences between Protestant and Catholic traditions. The second reason I assume is related to theoretical foundations, that is, critical pedagogy is often regarded as more suitable for adult education. The third is probably related to Freire’s emphasis on pedagogical features. As analyzed in chapter three, some intergenerational Christion education models intentionally avoid using the term “education” preferring that of “formation.” 9 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 158–162.

148 thinking in faith formation. He describes such separation as a typical “division of labor.”10 He argues that such separation does not sufficiently encourage “maturation in faith of participants, the reformation of the faith community, and the transformation of society.” Not only this, but such a separation prevents individual Christians from growing beyond a conventional faith and maintains people in their expected “roles,” and confirms the “status quo” of the social reality.11

Groome argues that critical reflective education should take a central role in faith education, such that it is more than just another agency of socialization.12 Meanwhile, I find that

Groome’s emphasis shifts slightly from accentuating a decisive role for critical reflection at the centre of socialization, toward appreciating the active intervention of the whole community, in order that education in faith might be accomplished in a more integrated way. What is important for Groome is that criticizing Christian socialization does not mean removing socialization from

Christian education; instead he intends to build a bridge between socialization and reflective education. His claim is that “a separation of ‘education’ from ‘formation’ is false.”13 The attempt at integration extends from developing the critical pedagogical approach toward “reconstructing” a community-based approach, which is the total community catechesis paradigm.

1.3. Total Community Catechesis

10 Groome, Sharing Faith, 194–195; also see note 11 in chap. 7. Groome notes that the distinction between “a schooling/instructional” and a “community of faith/enculturation” paradigm was made first by Westerhoff in Will Our Children Have Faith? He maintains that the former sees critical reflection as necessary, and the latter as not central. However, he disagrees with this either/or, arguing that his approach is capable of encompassing both. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the main advisers for Groome in a joint doctoral program at Union Theological Seminary and the Teacher’s College were C. Ellis Nelson (Union) and Dwayne Huebner (Columbia). He notes that Nelson, who is a pioneer of the socialization/enculturation approach, had a significant influence on his intellectual development. Groome, “Traces That Remain,” 150–151. 11 Groome, Sharing Faith, 102. 12 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 126. 13 Groome, Sharing Faith, 194.

149

The “total community catechesis” proposed by Groome is a broader, community-based approach that goes beyond the schooling paradigm of Christian education.14 Groome argues that to educate people in Christian faith requires both intentional socialization and reflective education. He expresses this metaphorically by saying it takes a “village with a school” to provide competent faith education that is lifelong.15 While the main focus in his early works was reflective pedagogy for lived Christian faith, this interest then extended to the educational role of whole communities as “catechetical educators,” i.e., family, congregation, and school/program, while maintaining the significance of the former. He notes in one of his latest works, Will There

Be Faith? that it is a big shift from a “schooling model” in religious education to a “community of faith” approach.16

To construct his new paradigm, Groome draws upon foundational principles from the

General Directory for Catechesis, a Catholic document issued in 1997 that puts lifelong faith formation with the parish community at the center of catechesis.17 While the General Directory for Catechesis pays primary attention to adults and adult catechetical education, an area that has received less emphasis than faith education for children and youth, 18 Groome argues that every

14 Groome, Will There Be Faith?162. While he called this model “total catechesis education” in the 2000s, I follow the latest title he uses, which is “total community catechesis.” This is also to be distinguished from a movement known as “whole community catechesis” in the Catholic church, which focuses on adult rather than intergenerational faith formation. Bill Huebsch, Whole Community Catechesis in Plain English (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2002). 15 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 81. 16 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 165. 17 Thomas Groome and Harold Daly Horell, eds. Horizons & Hopes: The Future of Religious Education (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003), 2-4. Groome claims: “Though the document is distinctly Catholic, I hope Protestant readers can ‘listen in’ as ‘neighbor’ in the body of Christ and hear resonant notes for their own ecclesial contexts.” Groome and Horell, Horizons & Hopes, 2. Also see Bill Huebsch, The General Directory for Catechesis in Plain English: A Summary and Commentary (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2003). 18 See the GDC article 258: “Adult catechesis must be given priority… [W]hile the . . . points here deal with adults, the catechesis of children and young people also remain a necessary element.” Huebsch, The General Directory for Catechesis in Plain English, 101.

150

Christian, young or old, is both teacher and learner in a way that goes beyond the limiting stereotype of “children and [adult] teachers.”

He defines total community catechesis as “an intentional coalition of parish, family, and program/school that engages every member and all aspects of each community, by and for people of all ages, teaching and learning together for Christian faith toward God’s reign in the world.”19 In Christian Religious Education, Groome defines catechesis as “the activity of reechoing or retelling the story of Christian faith that has been handed down,” narrowing its meaning to a specifically pedagogical activity of Christian religious education.20 This is because he wants to distinguish it from a broader definition incorporating the entire process of Christian enculturation, as Westerhoff proposes. However, Groome’s understanding of catechesis in a community-based paradigm has become broader than ever before, as if he is taking a step closer to Westerhoff in terms of appreciating the crucial formative role of socialization in handing on

Christian faith.21

In comparison with socialization/enculturation models, however, total community catechesis appears to have at least three different pedagogical emphases. First, Groome considers both socialization and education for handing on the faith. He points out a pattern that has emerged of using catechesis for the formative process of nurturing Christian identity and religious education for an informative pedagogy in a religious tradition. The two are “symbiotic,” he maintains, requiring “catechetical education to capture this dual and necessary emphases within ‘education in faith.’”22 Unlike Westerhoff, Groome emphasizes a crucial role for

19 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 162–163. 20 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 27. 21 Groome also notes that his total community catechesis paradigm resonates with the “generations of faith” project whose intergenerational faith formation (IGFF) model I examined as one of the socialization/enculturation approaches in chapter three. Groome, “Handing on the Faith,” 175. 22 Groome, “Total Catechesis Education,” 87.

151 education or reflective pedagogy in total community catechesis. Second, Groome recognizes all of the congregation, family, and school/program as the primary locus for educating in faith, or as

“catechetical educators.” He argues that every family, congregation, and school/program needs to develop a “faith-education consciousness” to educate all Christians in the lived Christian faith.

Third, he argues that the whole community should play the role of catechetical educators through every aspect of shared life and ministry: i.e., koinonia (to be a life-giving community), marturia

(to bear witness to Christian faith), leitourgia (to worship together), diakonia (to care for human needs), kerygma (to evangelize and preach the Good News), and didache (to teach Scripture and tradition), all of which have in the past been regarded as the ministry of the church exclusively.23

Groome argues that the whole community should intentionally harness its “faith-education potential” so that it might be structured to educate in faith rather than set aside didache for faith education only.24 This view echoes Catholic Christian educator Maria Harris, who argues all functions of the ecclesial ministry should function as the curriculum and “fashion” people of all ages in faith, although her focus is solely on congregational education.25

Further, Groome argues that all three faith forms in each community, i.e. congregation, family, and school, can and should educate people in faith through the six functions of ministry with their faith-education potential. First, the congregation as a catechetical educator needs to consciously craft its whole life to nurture the faith of its people. He argues that all the functions of ministry should be carried out with a catechetical consciousness, maximizing their potential to educate people in faith. 26 The church should provide families and schools with the help they

23 Groome, “Total Catechesis Education,” 83–84. 24 Groome, Will There Be Faith, 164–165. 25 Harris, Fashion Me a People, 43. Harris understands the five courses of the congregational life as curriculum of Christian education: koinonia (the curriculum of community), leiturgia (the curriculum of prayer), didache (the curriculum of teaching), kerygma (the curriculum of proclamation), and diakonia (the curriculum of service). 26 Groome, “Total Catechesis Education,” 85.

152 need. Second, in relation to the whole family as a catechetical educator,27 Groome argues that the family, as “the domestic church,” should intentionally participate in all the church’s ministry with a catechetical consciousness. He contends that the family is the venue for the incarnate transmission of faith, that is, faith formation happens through a “positive and receptive environment” and the “explicit experience and practice of the faith” in the family.28 Third,

Groome contends that the school as a catechetical educator should inform and educate people in faith, 29 which is its primary purpose, but that it should contribute also to servicing the common good of all in the wider community.30 He maintains that “the whole environment of the school or program should reflect the value of a Christian community—respect and reverence for every person, hospitality and welcome toward all, and living witness to faith, hope, and love.”31 Given

Groome’s equal attention to family, congregation, and school as catechetical educators, and his emphasis on the coexistence of socialization and reflective education in total community catechesis, in the remainder of this chapter I focus only on his approach to congregational education as the main locus for the discussion on critical reflection and children’s participation therein.

2. Relational Turn in Groome’s Epistemological Foundation

27 By “family” Groome means all sustaining networks of domestic life, including extended and blended families, one- and two-parent families, traditional and postmodern families. Groome, Will There Be Faith? 202. 28 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 205–207. 29 By “school” Groome means any church-sponsored school that educates in Christian faith. And by “programme” he means any formal process of catechetical education, not only in school but also in church. He points out that “‘school’ and ‘programme’ epitomize the church’s intentional efforts to provide a formal curriculum of faith education.” Groome, “Total Catechesis Education,” 86. 30 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 236. 31 Groome, “Total Catechesis Education,” 86.

153

Groome’s intention to integrate socialization/enculturation with a reflective approach is closely related to a turn in his epistemological foundation, which he calls an “epistemic ontology.” This turn provides the ontological foundation for a reflection- and praxis-based pedagogy that fosters participation of people of all ages as agents in community-based education for handing on Christian faith.

The epistemic foundation of Groome’s shared praxis approach emphasizes the ontological and relational aspect of knowing activity, and for this he draws on Western philosophical resources to build a strong philosophical foundation. He calls it an epistemic ontology, in which he attends to an “epistemic shift,” or an ontological and relational turn in the philosophical foundations of Christian education.32 This shift is found in Sharing Faith (1991) in contrast to his early work, Christian Religious Education (1980) where the focus was on the activity of knowing, rather than a way of being in the world. However, in the later works, his emphasis shifts beyond a way of knowing to a way of being in a true relationship, or the I-Thou relationship, as Martin Buber puts it, and to dialogue,33 while at the same time not separating the being from knowing. Groome criticizes the dualism between “knowing” and “being” found in

Western epistemology, with the former holding a dominant position over the latter, and points out that the result is the marginalization of being from knowing, as well as the epistemic privilege of a few over the rest. He therefore contends that “knowing” and “being” must be reunited in Christian education, regarding being to include “knowers” as well as “known,” with a dialectical relationship between them.34 Groome calls this a “humanizing rationality,” for it brings “knowers and known into a dialectical and right relationship of care that is life-giving for

32 Groome, Sharing Faith, 80. 33 Groome, Sharing Faith, 107; Martin Buber, I and Thou (New York: Scribner, 1970). 34 Groome, Sharing Faith, 34, 81.

154 self, others, and creation.”35 According to Groome, humanizing rationality is needed when dealing with people who were previously excluded from the knowledge enterprise and from social power.36 In this regard, he asserts that education is an “ontological affair,” molding the very “being” of people—who they become and how they live in the world.37 I now explore how

Groome understands “being” in relation to the activity of knowing and pedagogy.

2.1. “Being” as Agent-Subjects

Groome understands “being” as agent-subjects-in-relationship. As Martin Heidegger puts it, Groome’s concern is to overcome a “forgetfulness of being” toward a “remembrance of being” in the knowing activity as well as in pedagogy.38 This does not mean that agent-subjects are alone in vacuum, but that people have the dynamic capacities by which they express their identity and realize their agency in the world.39

According to Groome, the whole of people’s beings as self-identified agents have the capabilities and dispositions of the corporeal, the mental, and the volitional. These three capabilities are interrelated and operate jointly with one another. The corporeal means the whole physical aspect of human beings as embodied selves. 40 Groome argues that our bodies are the first source of agency and consciousness as “bodied wisdom,” and not just containers for our mental and volitional aspects. The mental refers to the capability to engage life with thoughtful comprehension, to construct an intelligible world for ourselves, and to appropriate some measure

35 Groome, Sharing Faith, 82. 36 Groome, Sharing Faith, 83. 37 Groome, Educating for Life, 35; Will There Be Faith? 94. 38 Groome, Sharing Faith, 32–35. 39 Groome, Sharing Faith, 86. 40 Groome, Sharing Faith, 87.

155 of meaning and value from it, such as remembering, reasoning, imagining, and reflecting.41 The volitional is a “capacity to make choices about and to effect the substance and form of every expression of our identity and agency in the world.”42 According to Groome, this relates to affectivity or feeling, and also leads us to commit ourselves with responsible and creative agency toward the future.43

The capabilities and dispositions of each aspect are also related to our sense of time, that is, the past, present, and future. With regard to a pedagogy, Groome suggests a schema where the dynamic capabilities of “being” and people’s activities are engaged and brought to consciousness. The activities related to corporeal capabilities over time are maintaining (the past), engaging (with the present), and regenerating (toward the future.) The activities with mental capabilities over time are remembering (the past), reasoning (in the present), and imagining (for the future). The activities with volitional capabilities in time are inheriting (the past), relating (in the present), and committing (toward the future).44

When it comes to the relationships agent-subjects are engaged in, Groome insists that these include not only personal relationships between people, but also the comprehensive relationships they build and participate in in the world. He contends that beings as agent-subjects have a two-way relationship with a public sociocultural world of meaning and value, that is, in

“place” and “time.” In an intentional Christian pedagogy, “place” relates to critical and dialogical reflection on participants’ present actions and public lives, while “time” relates to presenting and sharing the Christian stories and tradition. To examine a relationship between

41 Groome, Sharing Faith, 88–89. 42 Groome, Sharing Faith, 89. 43 Groome, Sharing Faith, 89. 44 Groome, Sharing Faith, 87.

156 intergenerational Christian education and his epistemic ontology in detail, I first explore agent- subjects-in-relationship in the “place” that Groome identifies.

2.2. Agent-Subjects-in Place

Groome argues that the place with which agent-subjects engage is their “whole place.”

Here the whole place means “the social and cultural world in which people realize their ‘being’ and continue to ‘become’ in interaction with it.”45 For Groome, the world includes both relationships between people and the sociocultural situation where they live. As agent-subjects- in-relationship, participants in pedagogy not only draw their story/vision from the world, but also shape their identity in ways that contribute to the world.46

Groome points out that in Christian education, the faith community as a socializing place has a formative influence on people’s faith identity and is a source of Christian nurture, by encouraging them to participate in its communal life.47 He argues that this “whole place” should be critically engaged with and reflected upon through religious education by participants who are agent-subjects, using their bodies, minds, and wills. Groome goes on to contend that agents- subjects should have a dialectical relationship with place that goes beyond mere interaction toward critical reflection on its sociocultural reality and relationships. He notes that his understanding of dialectical relationship is distinct from Karl Marx’s exaggeration of Hegel’s position (in terms of being caught in an accepting-negating-synthesizing process), even though he admits the influence of the Hegelian tradition. The dialectical relationship, he maintains, needs to be intentionally promoted through critical reflection, that is, an accepting-self-reflecting

45 Groome, Sharing Faith, 98. 46 Groome, Sharing Faith, 98. 47 Groome, Sharing Faith, 98.

157 or “discerning”48-transforming process, which is closer to Habermas’ position, in that it does not totally negate or deconstruct the sociocultural reality.49 I will explore the critical reflection he advocates in the next section.

Given his insistence on agent-subjects-in-place, Groome considers people of all ages who are in this place. Examining the world mediated by language, Groome argues for the inclusion of all people in Christian religious education: “The language world created by Christian religious education should reflect and propose to people a deep conviction of the profound dignity and worth of all people, a mode of relating that is based on the justice of ‘right relationship,’ mutuality, and partnership, a worldview that is humanizing for all and care-full of creation.”50

From this principle, Groome contends that the role of Christian education is to empower people of all ages to practice care and partnership inside and outside their faith communities. Such emphasis on “whole place” in Groome’s epistemic ontology may also lead one to understand intergenerational community and pedagogy as situated in a particular historical context. The aim then becomes empowering people of all ages to participate in the transformative mission of the faith community, for themselves and for the world, rather than just as the temporal interaction of transmitting faith within the community.

2.3. Agent-Subjects in Time

As another dimension of the relationship agents-subjects are in, Groome identifies

“being-in-time.” In a similar manner to the way he articulates place, Groome describes time as

48 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 95. 49 Groome, Sharing Faith, 102–104. 50 Groome, Sharing Faith, 106.

158

“the whole history in which we live, both our own and this history of our people.”51 He advocates an existential and holistic understanding of time rather than the linear and trichotomized one favored by most Western philosophers. Groome criticizes the latter, who are grounded in the Aristotelian tradition, for understanding time as a measure of motion along an imaginary line of history, that is, past, present, and future, distinct and separate from each other.

Being rooted in Augustine and Heidegger, Groome argues instead for a sense of holistic time in which past, present, and future have their existence in “time present.”52 As agent-subjects experience time as an existential unity within, rather than as an object outside them, they engage their whole time in knowing activity and pedagogy, “attending to their ‘present time,’ to their past and to the past of their people that influences the present, to their own future and to the future of their people that is being shaped in their present.”53 Thus Groome argues that as agent- subjects-in-time, we live our lives by “being together” in right community with God and others,

“making history” by giving time a direction with historical responsibility, and “hoping for eternity,” overcoming the fear of the end of time, that is, death, by being faithfully rooted in the

Christian faith.54

Groome argues that one’s understanding of time significantly influences how one educates others and designs curricula. In his view, the entirety of “place” is the context for who learns and how they learn, while the entirety of “time” encompasses what sources people learn from over time, that is, the tradition of the Christian community as well as the lives of its participants. Groome first focuses on the temporality of people’s own stories and visions, which

51 Groome, Sharing Faith, 108. 52 Groome, Sharing Faith, 110. 53 Groome, Sharing Faith, 111. 54 Groome, Sharing Faith, 111–112; Educating for Life, 80–86.

159 are behind, around, and in front of the time of their lives.55 He considers it important that people bring their own histories into Christian education, because, through a holistic view of time, agent-subjects are not just instructed in the disciplines and traditions of the past in a way that is disconnected from their lived faith experience. Rather, they express and share their own lives and

“stories,” reflecting on their being in time and imagining perceived and preferred consequences for their present and future lives, that is, “visions.”56 While people’s own stories and visions are also an important source for engaging in Christian religious education, Groome insists that the

Christian story and vision are crucial for educating participants in their faith identity and agency in the world. The “ontological turn” in Groome’s epistemology outlined above, requires an appropriate pedagogical approach, which is the next topic.

3. Shared Christian Praxis: Critical Reflective Pedagogy

Groome proposes a dialogical and reflective Christian pedagogy, which he calls shared

Christian praxis, or a life to Faith to life approach.57 He defines this approach as “a participative and dialogical pedagogy in which people reflect critically on their own historical agency in time and place and on their sociocultural reality, have access together to Christian Story/Vision, and personally appropriate it in community with the creative intent of renewed praxis in Christian faith toward God’s reign for all creation.”58 His approach can be characterized in four ways

55 Groome, Sharing Faith, 109. 56 Groome, Sharing Faith, 114–115 57 Groome, Will There Be Faith? chaps. 8 and 9. 58 Groome, Sharing Faith, 135.

160 according to its philosophical and theological features: a Christian pedagogy of participation, reflection, dialogue, and presentation.59

3.1. A Pedagogy of Participation

Groome’s shared praxis approach can be characterized as a pedagogy of participation in two ways. First, Groome argues for a communal dynamics in which all people are welcomed and encouraged to express, reflect, appropriate, and make decisions respecting each other as partners and active participants, as well as respecting their learning styles. Second, this pedagogical approach engages people in reflecting on and integrating faith with their present praxis in the world, in what he calls a life to Faith to life approach. He argues that for Christian education to reflect an “epistemic ontology” in its foundations calls for a proper pedagogy which engages the whole “being” of a participant as an agent-subject-in-relationship.60 And this is also related to a praxis way of knowing in terms of engaging participants’ present action in an intentional teaching/learning event. In order to promote such a praxis-based pedagogy for full engagement with participants, Groome suggests expanding the understanding of praxis in two ways. The first is to redefine praxis beyond public political activity in society toward “the consciousness that emerges from and the agency expressed in the whole ‘being’ as agent-subjects-in-relationship” and toward conscious reflection on public life (italics added).61 This process may help participants bring broader generative themes to a teaching/learning event.

59 In Will There Be Faith, Groome explains his approach as a pedagogy of participation, conversation, and presentation. Groome, Will There Be Faith? 293. Groome uses some core terms interchangeably in his work: e.g., shared praxis/life to Faith to life, dialogue/conversation, appropriation/integration, etc. 60 Groome, Sharing Faith, 133. 61 Groome, Sharing Faith, 134.

161

In a similar vein, Groome proposes an expanded and united notion of praxis. Criticizing

Aristotle’s separated ways of knowing, that is, theoria (the contemplative/speculative), praxis

(the practical), and poiesis (the productive), Groome argues instead for three interrelated activities of knowing that give it a more agential connotation: active, reflective, and creative knowing.62 The active dimension of knowing includes all the bodily, mental, and volitional activities. The reflective dimension engages reason, memory, and imagination, while the creative aspect is related to the imaginative expectation of the consequences of present praxis, and beyond this, to imagining results and outcomes.

3.2. A Pedagogy of Reflection

Another feature of shared praxis is critical reflection. The intention of critical reflection is

“to encourage participants in critical consciousness and appropriation of present praxis, to promote a dialect among them and their location in place and time.”63 Groome contends that in a praxis way of knowing, critical reflection is an intentional pedagogical activity through which participants as agent-subjects-in-relationships engage and reflect on their own beings and the public life of their society:

The reflective aspect of praxis involves the whole human capacity for thought, reaching to our thinking about our thinking. . .. Critical reflection looks inward to the depths or personal awareness and outward at the whole public world through social analysis. By critical reflection we discern what we think, and then why we think we think that. In this second level of reflection, we can probe our own biases and personal blind spots. Likewise, critical reflection pushes us to ask how our context and culture are shaping our reflections. Such considerations of our historical situation and ourselves within it is at the heart of critical reflection (italics original).64

62 Groome, Sharing Faith, 136; “A Shared Praxis Approach,” 768. 63 Groome, Sharing Faith, 188. 64 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 279.

162

According to Groome, critical reflection is directly related to the mental/reflective activity of the human “being” or of praxis knowing—reasoning, remembering, and imagining.65

Each activity of “being” and knowing is related to critical reflection on the personal “life-world” and the “public life” of a person’s society as follows: analytical and social remembering, critical and social reasoning, and creative and social reasoning:66

Critical and social reasoning enables participants to uncover the reasons for present praxis and how it is influenced by their context in place and time, to scrutinize the interests, assumptions, prejudices, and ideologies that it embodies and the pre-understandings they bring to interpret it. Analytical and social remembering prompts participants to a critical analysis of the sociohistorical and biographical sources of present praxis and the historical influences that shape how they name it. Creative and social imagining enables participants to see the intended and likely consequences of present praxis for both self and society and empowers them to imagine and make ethical choices for praxis that is personally and socially transforming (italics original).67

Groome argues that in his reflective pedagogy, critical reflection needs to be distinguished from negative criticism. He maintains that it is instead a dialectical critique or a

“positive act of discernment” by which one can look “inward to the depths of personal awareness or outward at the whole public world through social analysis.”68 In addition, he notes that critical reflection engages both the rational and the affective ability of beings as agent-subjects, even though it is mainly entailed in the reflective activity of the extended praxis.

As will be seen in the discussion on shared Christian praxis, this present-focused critical reflection culminates when participants engage with their present praxis, reflecting on its meaning and reason in their lives and the society as part of the second movement; however,

Groome asserts that critical reflection permeates all the movements of the shared praxis.69

65 Groome, Sharing Faith, 104. 66 Groome, Sharing Faith, 137. 67 Groome, Sharing Faith, 188. 68 Groome, “A Shared Praxis Approach,” 768–769. 69 Groome, Educating for Life, 437.

163

3.3. A Pedagogy of Dialogue

Groome insists that critical reflection takes place through dialogue within an intentional pedagogical setting. Dialogue is itself the act of building Christian community.70 Through true dialogue of the “I-Thou” relationship, people of all ages are encouraged to critically reflect on their present action and integrate their lives with their Christian faith. Such dialogue is constituted by two fundamental activities—telling and empathetic listening, through which all participants can share with and be heard by others as well as build a community of conversation with true partnership and mutual trust.71

Groome also contends that dialogue begins with one’s self. Just as Freire understands dialogue as “indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality,”72 it is through respectful dialogue that the process of conscientization brings to consciousness generative themes that are posed by learners, and which then become the content of a learning situation. For Groome, dialogue needs to take place, not only among participants, but also between participants and the

Christian story and vision, and ultimately, between participants and God through Christian religious education. By sharing their reflections on present praxis and the Christian story/vision with other participants, people may find their inner dialogue merging into dialogue with God, the one who empowers them to live their Christian faith in the world.73

3.4. A Pedagogy of Presentation

70 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 188. 71 Groome, Sharing Faith, 143; Educational for Life, 292. 72 Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 64. 73 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 191.

164

Groome emphasizes the presentation aspect of shared praxis in the way he encourages participants to have persuasive and meaningful access to the resources of the Christian story and vision.74 While reflective pedagogy puts stress on participants’ reflection on their lives and lived faith, the presentation, or “re-presentation” in terms of continuously or repetitively making present the story/vision plays an essential role in making shared praxis “Christian.” This presentation aspect is similar to other instruction-based Christian education approaches, for

Groome explains his approach is often didactic and includes persuasive apologetics on behalf of

Christian faith. However, Groome attempts to integrate this “kerygmatic” or “deductive” aspect with an “experiential” or “inductive” approach in a way that invites participants to dialogue, pose questions and question activities, and it is this that encourages them to make Christian faith their own and to learn from it.75

For Groome, the Christian story is “the distillation and symbolic mediation of God’s self- disclosure to this people and their ancestors in faith over time, and how they have attempted to understand it and respond.”76 And, the Christian vision is “a metaphor for the possibilities and responsibilities, the promises and demands, that are prompted by the Christian community’s

Story.”77 By honoring and being responsible to the past and future in the present, Groome argues, people of all ages participate in and reflect on the Christian story connecting them to their own stories.

3.5. Five movements of Shared Christian Praxis

74 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 295. 75 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 295-296. 76 Groome, Sharing Faith, 114. 77 Groome, Sharing Faith, 115.

165

Groome’s shared Christian praxis consists of five movements plus the focusing activity as an initial act. He notes that although he suggests five movements, the schema has flexibility and many possible combinations and variations depending on educational settings, age levels, and time constraints. Here I explore the basic process of shared Christian praxis: the focusing activity, naming present praxis, critical reflection on present praxis, representing the Christian story and vision, dialectical hermeneutics to appropriate the Christian story and vision, and decision making for lived Christian faith.

The focusing Act

The focusing act invites and introduces participants to a generative theme of present praxis as well as to “an entrée” into an aspect of Christian faith. According to Groome, the goal of the focusing act is “to do or raise up something that gets people engaged and recognizing the theme as present in and meaningful to their lives.”78 The term generative theme refers to the theme that is most charged with background meaning for people, and the one that has power to generate other themes for the learners. Groome suggests that the generative theme signals to participants from the beginning the vital core of the curriculum that will be attended to throughout the whole event. This focusing act includes not only joining an activity within or outside the teaching/learning event, but also engaging with a question, a symbol, or communication media provided by coordinators or participants. This act also provides a space where people feel secure enough to participate in naming and reflecting on their present praxis in the next movements.79

78 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 305. 79 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 304.

166

Movement 1: Naming and Expressing Present Praxis

The first movement expresses and names “present praxis.” By present praxis Groome means the participants’ present reality as they perceive and experience it. The purpose of this movement is to encourage participants to “pay attention” to the theme as they recognize it in their lives and to express it verbally or in other ways. He argues that participants’ self-expression is crucial to their “being” and becoming agent-subjects-in-relationship.80

The key to this movement is not to express what they know about or accept, but what they experience, feel, or intuit in their personal lives as well as in the society’s praxis. Groome articulates this task as being that of eliciting “a personal statement on present action rather than a statement of theoria based on ‘what they say,’” that is, the shift from a theoria to a praxis way of knowing.81 By offering an interpretation of their present praxis and placing it in dialogue, participants have a chance to reshape it.82 According to Groome, expressing present praxis does not always mean describing it verbally, because some participants may feel that they are not yet prepared, or the space where they join is not safe enough. However, it is the role of a facilitator to encourage participants to express their sentiments, feelings, or intuitions in as clear a statement as possible.

Movement 2: Critical Reflection on Present Action

The purpose of the second movement is to encourage participants to reflect critically on the stories and visions expressed in their own lives and sociocultural context.83 In terms of their stories, participants are asked to become aware of the reason for and meaning of their present

80 Groome, Sharing Faith, 179. 81 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 208, 210. 82 Groome, Sharing Faith, 180. 83 Groome, Sharing Faith, 188.

167 action in their personal lives, as well as “the social conditioning, norms, assumptions embodied in their present praxis.”84 In relation to their visions, critical reflection helps participants ascertain the likely and desired consequences of their stories. The critical reflection is shared by participants through dialogue around the topic chosen for the specific educational setting.

Groome claims that among the dynamic capacities of the three aspects of agent-subjects- in-relationship, i.e., the corporeal, mental, volitional, the mental aspect mainly engages in critical reflection: remembering (of the past), reasoning (in the present), and imagining (for the future).

These three aspects work in critical reflection either in a combination or through a specific emphasis on one of them so that participants might understand and interpret their lives and lived faith in the world. To promote these three activities, a facilitator needs to pose three corresponding kinds of questions: reason questions to encourage participants to probe more deeply into their present praxis around the generative theme; memory questions to “recall their experience regarding the theme, to consider the origins of their present sense of it in their lives, or to recognize how their own social location or biography may be shaping the them and/or their responses to it”; and imagination questions to “have them imagine beyond present praxis, to recognize the likely consequences of their praxis and the possibilities it holds for them.”85

Groome explains this last aspect as a prophetic dimension in that it uncovers the reasons for and consequences of the present praxis. Groome points out that “the educator has responsibility to be a prophetic presence in the community, to encourage and be open to the prophetic gifts of all participants” (italics added).86

84 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 211. 85 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 313–314. 86 Groome, Sharing Faith, 210.

168

Movement 3: Re-presenting Christian Story and Vision

The third movement makes Christian story and vision accessible. Groome argues that in this movement participants are provided with the Christian story and vision that corresponds to the meaning of present praxis in their lives, and to the society on which they critically reflect in movements 1 and 2. As Christian religious education, representing the truth and spiritual wisdom revealed in and handed down from the Christian faith is crucial for participants. This movement helps them to find its meaning and move forward with appropriating their lived faith.

In this regard, Groome contends that the role of educators is significant in bringing critical hermeneutics to the texts and contexts of the Christian story and vision, just as participants critically interpret the text and the contexts of their lives.87

Groome points out that re-presenting Christian story and vision is a catechetical movement, and he understands catechesis (katechein) as the “re-echoing”88 or handing down, of the teachings and spiritual wisdom of the Christian story and vision.89 He does point out that this

Christian story and vision should not just be transmitted to participants, or indoctrinated in a monological or closed manner, which may prevent people connecting the Christian faith with their lives. Groome contends that making the Christian story and vision accessible should be a dialogical and hermeneutical movement characterized by openness.90

Movement 4: Dialectical Hermeneutics to Appropriate Christian Story/Vision

The fourth movement is a dialectical hermeneutic to appropriate the Christian story/vision to participants’ stories and visions. Through a dialectical process between the

87 Groome, Sharing Faith, 215. 88 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 26. 89 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 214. 90 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 215.

169

Christian story and vision and their own, participants are encouraged to integrate or appropriate these through judgement and to move beyond their present praxis.91 While Groome clearly emphasizes God’s self-revelation in the Christian story and vision, he argues that it is the dialectic that is the “liberating and creative process that uses the tradition itself to empower us to move forward.”92

It is important to examine what Groome means by “appropriation” in this movement.

According to Groome, appropriation is where participants “integrate Christian Story/Vision by personal agency into their own identity and understanding.”93 Through appropriation they “make it their own, judge and come to see for themselves how their lives are to be shaped by it and how they are to be reshapers of its historical realization in their place and time.”94 This process is crucial in moving them beyond finding “right-answers” toward naming their “new” knowing by reflecting on and incorporating the community’s knowing, that is, the Christian story/vision, into their own stories.95 Groom describes appropriation as “re-cognition” in that, while the third movement entails cognition, in this movement participants appreciate (for their present praxis) the Christian story and vision, which mediates God’s revelation when they bring critical consciousness to bear upon it. Its revelatory dynamic encourages participants to reconstitute their story/vision with hermeneutics of retrieval, suspicion, and creative commitment, as a “living” rather than a “dead” tradition.96

Movement 5: Decision and Response for Lived Christian Faith

91 Groome, Sharing Faith, 249. 92 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 218. 93 Groome, Sharing Faith, 250. 94 Groome, Sharing Faith, 250. 95 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 220. 96 Groome, Sharing Faith, 254.

170

The focus of this final movement is to encourage participants to make decisions about how to live and act their Christian faith in the world. Groome argues that in this movement participants as agent-subjects-in-relationship respond by making cognitive, affective, and behavioral decisions which pertain to individual or communal activities. Such decisions are made on a personal level, but also on interpersonal or social/political levels of their lives.97

Groome argues that decision making in this movement is also related to reforming participants’ identity and agency as rooted in Christian faith. He contends that this process empowers them “to nurture participants in the identity and agency of Christian ‘character,’ that is, in ongoing Christian conversion.”98 Nurturing the Christian identity of participants is enabled, not simply by providing them with a socializing context, but also by giving them an experience of dialogue and interdependence in Christian decision making.99

According to Groome, making decisions is a stage of completion of the hermeneutical circle, but it also means being open to a new beginning to see beyond the participants’ own and their society’s present praxis toward actions and responsibilities they may take in their lives and the world.100 For this reason, like the other movements, asking questions and questioning activities are a crucial part of the fifth movement. These five movements of the shared praxis are operative in the educational process for participants of all ages according to their developmental readiness, and especially for children, whose participation in the dialectical process is the focus of the next section.

97 Groome, Sharing Faith, 266. 98 Groome, Sharing Faith, 271. 99 Groome, Sharing Faith, 271. 100 Groome, Sharing Faith, 123.

171

4. Children’s Participation in Critical Reflective Pedagogy

Groome argues that people of all ages, from young children to adults, can and should participate in the dialectical educational process. He often articulates how young children engage in critical reflection on their present praxis in both intentional educational events and daily situations. Throughout the works chosen for examination in this study, Groome explains children’s participation mainly in a descriptive rather than prescriptive way, using examples of catechesis classes or casual situations, except for in a chapter in Christian Religious Education, which examines the issue in light of developmental research based on the classic Piagetian tradition.101 For this reason, I need to reconstruct his insistence on children’s participation in critical reflection extensively, focusing on three points: Groome’s theological and philosophical view of children’s capability for critical reflection; the issue of readiness; and pedagogical plans, i.e., how educators should plan an intentional education process to empower children’s participation.

4.1. Theological and Philosophical View of Children

Groome emphasizes the potential of human beings in general and of children in particular. While his epistemic ontology highlights the active agency of participants as agent- subjects-in-relationships based on extensive philosophical foundations, his theological view on children gives considerable weight to the potential and dignity of human beings. Rooted in a

Catholic theological anthropological view, he argues that human beings are “essentially good and dignified—though capable of sin, remaining in the divine image.”102 The divine image and

101 Groome, Sharing Faith, 297. 102 Groome, Educating for Life, 76.

172 likeness given by “original grace” are never entirely lost despite original sin. He maintains that the doctrine of the imago Dei indicates the essential goodness of persons, which requires people to respect the equal dignity of all human beings. Also, it leads to seeing human beings as possessing unending potential for becoming, knowing, and creating in response to the truth God discloses.103 Concerning the potential of human beings, Groome is strongly influenced by two

Catholic theologians’ ideas, that is, Lonergan’s realistic optimism104 and Karl Rahner’s

“supernatural existentials” which emphasizes the human capacity for self-transcendence in history and the attainment of full humanity.105 In relation to children’s capability for appropriation, Groome echoes Rahner’s appreciation of children’s innate capacity and disposition to recognize and appropriate the truths and values of the Christian story/vision to their own lives by knowing, imagining, reflecting, and appreciating these at early ages through

God’s grace:106

I have found that even kindergarten children can begin to participate in an interpersonal appropriation of Christian Story/Vision and to see for themselves what it means for their lives. . . . My warrant for the conviction that people have a native capacity for movement 4 activity reflects the theological anthropology that functions in concert with its undergirding theology of revelation throughout a shared Christian praxis approach. . . . [Drawing upon] Rahner’s notion of the “supernatural existential” in human “being” to buttress the claim that people capable of encountering and recognizing God’s self-disclosure in present praxis [in movement 1]. . . I add that . . . people have the capacity to recognize God’s

103 Groome, Educating for Life, 83-84. Although his Catholic view on human beings has some differences with the Protestant tradition in general and Reformed tradition where I belong in particular, for example, in terms of a low estimate of human beings’ ability to seek God on their own initiative and power, I find that Groome’s view resonates with contemporary Reformed theological views on children and education at least in three ways: 1) the original blessing and goodness of God’s children despite the sinfulness of all humans; 2) the crucial role of intentional Christian education; and 3) guidance by God’s grace in Christ. Jensen, Graced Vulnerability, 98-99; Kum Hee Yang, Chŏng'gyo gekyuk kwa gidŏkgyo gyoyuk [Reformation and Christian Education] (Seoul, Korea: Publishing House The Presbyterian Church of Korea, 1999), 109–111, 137–139; Barbara Pitkin, “The Heritage of the Lord: Children in the Theology of John Calvin,” in The Child in Christian Thought, ed. Marcia J. Bunge (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001), 164–169. 104 Groome, Educating for Life, 74–75. 105 Groome, Sharing Faith, 255–256; James C. Livingston and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Modern Christian Thought, Vol. II: The Twentieth Century. 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000), 209–210. 106 Groome, Sharing Faith, 256, 258.

173

self-disclosure in what Rahner calls “categorical revelation,” or what I have been calling throughout Christian Story/Vision.107

This point is reflected in Groome’s insistence on children’s incipient but active participation in placing their own life narratives in dialogue and dialectic with the Christian story/vision, which will be revisited later in this chapter in a section on pedagogical planning.

Groome’s view on children also resonates with Maria Montessori in some ways. He agrees with Montessori, who views young children as spiritual and “contemplative” beings, 108 for whom the purpose of education is to practice “the art of companionship” in order to draw out

“the life already within” the child.109 Recognizing Montessori’s emphasis on corporeal knowing especially, i.e., that young children learn best when they engage in physical interaction with sensorial materials and then attend to the “world of meaning” in a contemplative way, he stretches this positive view on children to all participants as agent-subjects-in-relationships and their participation in aesthetic activities in the pedagogical events.110 Groome argues that such a positive view on young people not only requires creating a respectful environment as the educational space for all participants to be heard and taken seriously,111 but that it also challenges the stereotype of “children and teachers” and moves toward a new perspective, that is, everyone is learner and teacher.112

Before moving to the issue of readiness, it is worth noting Groome’s reflection on the liberation of children as a bridge to my discussion on children’s active participation and agency

107 Groome, Sharing Faith, 255–256. 108 Groome, Educating for Life, 434. 109 Groome, Educating for Life, 39. Maria Montessori, The Montessori Method (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 73–74. 110 Groome, Sharing Faith, 88. 111 Groome, Educating for Life, 109–110. 112 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 76.

174 in critical reflective education in this chapter, as well as in intergenerational Christian education in the next. Groome argues that:

Christian religious education is for and by the whole church. It is to be “toward adulthood” in that its aim is maturity. But it typically begins in childhood, and to have intersubjectivity with children is an even greater challenge. If we look critically at our society, we must surely notice that children are often treated as objects. While the struggles for economic, cultural, sexual, and racial freedom are of profound concern to us, as educators we must also be concerned with the liberation of children. . . . We also have the task of educating our society to a new recognition of children as persons. To do this, we must begin with our own educational praxis. 113

As one of the boldest statements Groome makes about children, the above shows how Groome considers their being, and the role of Christian education in their emancipation, although he does not explicitly connect this issue with their participation in critical reflective education, which is the next issue.

4.2. Readiness for Critical Reflective Pedagogy

Groome considers the issue of readiness in his shared praxis approach by asking an appropriate question, “What educational process is capable of affirming people in the ‘truth’ of their particular stage, while summoning them beyond the limits of that stage to a new level of human maturation?”114 As is evident in the question, Groome’s ultimate interest in readiness is not so much about whether or not children can engage in critical reflection according to their cognitive development capability, as it is about how children as agent-subjects-in-relationships do so in pedagogical events, and how Christian education can intentionally encourage them to participate in the dialectical and reflective process in light of Christian faith.

113 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 265. 114 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 235.

175

With regard to readiness, he argues that religious educators should be attentive to both kairos and chronos time when designing the reflective and hermeneutical activities for shared

Christian praxis. Kairos time means discerning the “right time” to invite participants to the reflective process and pose a particular question or questioning activity, depending on their relational and emotional condition and contextual situation. This is universally true for all participants, regardless of age. Groome explains this universal aspect in another way: shared

Christian praxis is a “natural” approach toward which people of all ages already have a disposition. A reflection on life and on the wisdom of the ages in dialogue with others is already at work in children’s lives, such as in their casual conversations in the family.115

In the meantime, chronological timing is mainly related to their developmental levels, especially a believing activity that is a cognitive/mental dimension to Christian faith, in comparison with a trusting (affective/relational dimension) or a doing (behavioral/obediential dimension), dimensions that are interrelated and not separable.116 Groome claims that children’s readiness basically corresponds to the stages of human development as proposed in the theories of Piaget and Fowler.117 According to Groome, a form of shared praxis can be used for Christian religious education at the point of the concrete operational stage.118 People’s ability to critically reflect using reason, memory, and imagination can begin, and should be nurtured, at least with the first signs of concrete operational thinking at around five or six years of age, where it often takes the form of asking “why?” with a sense of curiosity.119 Children are capable of a basic form

115 Groome, Sharing Faith, 148. 116 Groome, Sharing Faith, 207. 117 Groome, Sharing Faith, 188. 118 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 245. Against his claim that young children hardly participate in the reflective process “before” the concrete operational stage, some contemporary developmental scientists who advocate theories of mind may have different views about the way young children can reflect the world and the self at earlier ages than traditionally understood, as I noted in chapter two. 119 Groome, Sharing Faith, 188.

176 of concrete reflection because of their cognitive development level, (unlike adults who engage in the fullness of reflection, which requires a mature cognitive capability for abstract concepts and symbols, a capability that is available at the formal operational stage after age of twelve or thirteen, according to the Piagetian developmental theories).120

At this moment it is important to see where Groome agrees with Piaget, that is, the dynamics which enable children’s knowing activity by interacting with the environment. Piaget calls such dynamics “equilibration,” which is an inherent tendency in the organism to balance two modes of adaption, i.e., assimilation (incorporating the external stimulus world into its already existing structure) and accommodation (adjusting to the external stimulus world).121 In this sense, Groome interprets Piaget’s dynamic concept of knowing activity, not only as active and creative in the way children as agent-subjects construct what they learn and experience and reflect on its meaning, but also as dialectical, in the recurring process of equilibration between assimilation and accommodation.122 Further, he argues that this active, creative, and dialectical way of knowing can be understood as action-oriented, corresponding to a praxis-based education process.123 While he criticizes Piaget’s educational process for being insufficiently critical of

120 In relation to children’s reflection according to their developmental capability, in his early work Groome appears to agree with Donald Goldman’s religious thinking theory, which, based on the classic Piagetian perspective, argues that teaching abstract religious concepts to children is a vain effort because of their incapacity for the sort of formal thinking that such an abstract concept requires. Groome, Christian Religious Education, 235– 236, 248, 251. However, as he insists in the same work, Christian educators should deal with the “data” being offered from the social sciences with a “modicum of skepticism.” He no longer refers to such an extreme view in his later works, but seems rather to lean on philosophical and theological perspectives that affirm the potential for children’s engagement in the reflective education process, such as that of Montessori, who argues young children have the spiritual ability to wonder and contemplate. Groome, Educating for Life, 434; Will There Be Faith? 240. 121 Richard M. Lerner, Concepts and Theories of Human Development, 3rd ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002), 375. 122 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 249. Some Christian educators pay close attention to children’s active and creative cognition to construct the knowledge they obtain, as Groome does. For example, James Loder, who identifies Piaget’s emphasis on the dynamics, or transformative aspects in his term, of cognition as Groome does, expresses such cognition theologically as the creative activity of the human spirit in the Spirit. James E. Loder, The Logic of the Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 100. 123 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 250.

177 social reality,124 Groome greatly appreciates his contribution to education in terms of the dialectical and praxis-oriented insights he brings to the field.

Following the critical appropriation of psychological sources in his approach, Groome opposes the idea that only adults who are supposed to be mature in developmental terms can participate in critical reflection. Instead, he argues that children, at least those at the concrete operational stage, can “comprehend the reasons for and consequences of present action.”125

While Groome’s ultimate concern is how to educate people of all ages to grow beyond a conventional faith stage toward maturity, he strongly argues for children’s reflective and creative potential:

Educators should not take developmentalist descriptions as prescriptions, as if they are not to invite people to their own decision making until they have reached a postconventional stage of human development. I’m convinced from my work that young children have less difficulty in coming to their own decisions than do typical adults. But even adults who are socialized in a “culture of dependence” about their faith, when encouraged and “permitted” by an approach like shared praxis, can being making their own decision (italics original).126

Groome argues that children engage in the reflective process and decision making more easily than adults, who often find it difficult and painful to participate in this process,127 because critical reflection often entails “reconstruction [of experience and memory] which may be painful” as

Dewey puts it.128 For children’s capacity for reflection, Groome draws upon Piaget: “[T]he ability for any kind of reflection develops through sequential stages, and the genesis of the advanced stage must be laid in the previous stages.”129 However, Groome points out that this does not mean that critical reflection occurs inevitably. He asserts that they should be

124 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 249–250. 125 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 252. 126 Groome, Sharing Faith, 277. 127 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 213. 128 Groome, Sharing Faith, 208. 129 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 251.

178 encouraged to participate in such intentional dialogue for critical reflection and discernment, and not be detained at conventional stages, which are the mystic-literal faith stage (stage 2) or the synthetic-conventional faith stage (stage 3) according to Fowler’s faith development theory.

Likewise, for shared praxis too work more consciously, it should be provided as an intentional process for educating children: integrating their experience with broader resources of knowledge to reach new positions and insights.130 He argues that the potential for critical reflection in children should be encouraged so that they might do mature reflection later on as adults.131 He maintains that “the seeds of reflection can be sown early by encouraging children to think for themselves, albeit in a concrete manner,” by posing questions rather than giving unidirectional instructions and by promoting reflective dialogue.132 In other words, for Groome, epistemological and pedagogical concerns precede children’s developmental levels in the discussion on readiness.

4.3. Pedagogical Planning

Groome argues that educators can encourage children to practice incipient forms of critical reflection by posing questions in concrete terms and by suitable questioning activities about children’s own lives and lived faith. Here I focus on four kinds of pedagogical planning he suggests for children’s participation in the dialectical approach: creating a hospitable space, selecting a generative theme, posing questions and questioning activities, and using various bodily, emotional, and aesthetic activities.

130 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 273. 131 Groome, Sharing Faith, 454–455, n18. 132 Groome, Educating for Life, 437.

179

First, creating a hospitable space is important for encouraging children to participate in the creative and reflective educational process. In creating a hospitable space, educators should first and foremost have confidence in children’s potential for reflecting on and integrating their lived stories and the Christian stories in meaning-making and decision for renewed praxis.

Groome argues that educators must encourage all incipient signs of each movement’s activities, and proceed on the conviction that they can undertake the reflection and dialectical hermeneutics required in the educational process.133 It is especially important for children to enter a hospitable and open space for these pedagogical events, because such a space encourages them to participate in questioning activities and interpret their stories and the Christian stories as agents, rather than passive attendees, through dialogue and using their curiosity and imagination.

Groome refers to two kinds of hospitable environments: emotional and physical. While the importance of the latter is well recognized in any pedagogy (for example, Groome suggests a soft and circular environment rather than a hard and linear one), an interpersonal ethos marked by hospitality in a community of trust is needed if children are to participate as partners in the educational process. Such an ethos will help them feel “at home” and invite them to dialogical and interpretive activities free of knowledge control.134

Second, selecting a generative theme or symbol for the pedagogical event is as important for children as providing a hospitable environment. Groome argues that the generative theme should be, or should symbolize some aspect of present praxis that is likely to engage children’s active participation in the pedagogical event.135 The important point in choosing generative themes is to consider children’s lives and lived faith in their personal, communal, and societal

133 Groome, Sharing Faith, 263. 134 Groome, Sharing Faith, 188–190. 135 Groome, Sharing Faith, 164.

180 worlds. Such themes will then evoke real interest, out of which children will participate in the whole pedagogical process, which will in turn encourage them to integrate their lives and lived faith with the Christian stories. The themes suggested for children’s education in Groome’s works are not entirely different from those for other ages insofar as they are also related to the

Christian faith and human freedom pursued for God’s reign. Themes may include a range of topics in relation to children’s lived faith and communal experiences: not only those related to

Christian identity and ecclesial events such as prayer, new life, faith, hope, friendship, baptism etc., but also Christian stories such as creation, the Exodus event, the ministry of Jesus and the church, and so on. For instance, in relation to a pedagogy of social consciousness, Groome even suggests that a theme of social justice can be brought into children’s religious education, because, “the seeds of social reflection can be sown much earlier, and the tree is in the seed.”136

Third, posing proper questions is the most crucial aspect in planning and implementing a dialogical pedagogy for children. Questions encourage children to participate in the educational process in a critical and creative way. Groome insists that posing questions and planning questioning activities penetrates the whole process of the life to Faith to life approach, even in movement 3, where the aim is to present the Christian story/vision. In that movement, posing a question retains children’s attention on the generative theme/s through dialogue, but also makes this presentation process meaningful and persuasive in connecting children’s lived faith with

Christian stories in an open and dialogical manner rather than as a matter that is closed.

If educators ask children well-prepared questions and respect their responses, the children can enter into activities of attending, critical reflection, judgement, dialectical appropriation, and decision making at the level of their developmental readiness.137 Groome provides a set of

136 Groome, Educating for Life, 389. 137 Groome, Sharing Faith, 259.

181 questions for critical reflection by young people as an example: “What do you really think about that? What you do think or feel this way? What are some possibilities here? Do you have any reason to question your own perspective?138 Also, when explaining critical reflection on participants’ lived faith and experiences (movement 2), Groome asserts that this reflection takes different forms at different age levels, but the focus of the critical reflection is the same for all ages in relation to the topic chosen, i.e., what we think (feel, do, etc.) and why do we think we think (feel, do) that.139 He argues that unless children are encouraged to some basic form of reflection on their lived faith from the beginning, the fullness of critical reflection may not be possible in adulthood.140 Also, the more effective questioning activities in this movement are

“open-ended” rather than “yes or no” ones.141 When facilitators are open-minded about the generative themes and realize that they are also on an ongoing spiritual journey in faith, they are likely to encourage participants to new horizons in their integration of lived faith with Christian stories and decision making.142

Fourth, Groome argues that concrete and aesthetic activities help children to express their reflection on their lives and the Christian stories, and to participate in the dialectical education events with all their senses. Concrete activities may include not only verbal, bodily and aesthetic activities, such as craft, drawing, play, dance, and field trips, but also non-verbal activities. Even silence, Groome asserts, “may be the most effective times for dialogue with oneself and with what others have already shared.”143 For Groome, the important point in educating children in

138 Groome, Educating for Life, 311. 139 Groome, Sharing Faith, 209. 140 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 232, n5. 141 Groome, Sharing Faith, 209, 277. 142 Groome, Sharing Faith, 278. 143 Groome, Sharing Faith, 185.

182 faith is to encourage them have a concrete encounter with Christian stories within their “lived experience.”144

Groome provides a remarkable example of an aesthetic activity for children in movement

4, where he describes young children’s participation in appropriation and dialectical hermeneutics. Giving a role play as an example of a way of appropriating the Christian story and vision to children’s present praxis in movement 4, Groome argues that an amazing level of dialectical hermeneutics and appropriation from even the youngest children can be elicited through such intentional, concrete pedagogical activities.145 However, he maintains it is important to structure intentional pedagogical activities for appropriation, even though people of all ages have an innate capability and disposition to integrate the truth and values of the Christian story/vision to their own lives. This is because, regardless of age, participants tend to prefer being told the truth and what to do it by “authority,” rather than discerning and choosing it interdependently in a community of dialogue.146 For this reason, Groome argues that educators should support people even from their earliest years to move beyond these stages toward maturity in their Christian faith.147

4.4. Children in Total Community Catechesis

Groome makes direct references to children’s place in total community catechesis in relation to his three functions of ministry—koinonia, kerygma and didache—and in relation to three educational agents: family, congregation and school. My focus here has two points: how

144 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 253. 145 Groome, Sharing Faith, 258. 146 Groome, Sharing Faith, 255. 147 Groome, Sharing Faith, 255.

183 faith-education potential is harnessed in the three functions of ministry, and how children’s critical and creative consciousness can be fostered in them.

First, Groome argues that the congregation is called to be a koinonia, a community of welcome, which is an effective context for faith education. He claims that “the more a parish is such a community [of faith, hope, and love,] the more likely that it will educate in faith effectively.”148 Explaining the roots of the meaning of koinonia as “to share in common,”

Groome offers a theological rationale for building an equal and inclusive community of agents of

Christian faith, as well as for children’s participation in the community:

[B]ut how can this be so unless all are welcome and included as equal members? Every disciple of Jesus should be welcome at the table, have a voice and be heard, be invited to participate actively in the Church’s life and mission, not just as a recipient, but as an agent of their faith. Our best model here is Jesus and the inclusive community he forged, epitomized, and symbolized in his table fellowship. There all were welcomed and cherished, with special outreach to sinners and the marginalized.149

Although Groome’s insistence on a hospitable and inclusive community does not lead to a direct education in faith, he asserts that intentional effort to build such a community can heighten the faith-education effect of the church’s communality. Here Groome suggests getting people of all ages involved in the life and ministries of the congregation and utilizing various ways—such as intergenerational programs and social networking services—to bind adults and children together and create a sense of belonging and inclusion.

Second, Groome claims that the congregation needs to be a community of the Word through the ministries of kerygma and didache. While the main avenue of the former is preaching, the latter is closely related to teaching in formal education programs in the congregation. By preaching, Groome means not just the act of proclaiming God’s Word, but also

148 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 167. 149 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 169.

184 its content, which is the Old and New Testaments. Groome argues that to recenter the Bible at the core of the Christian faith is a highly effective mode of religious education.150 For this the congregation needs to encourage people of all ages to read and interpret the Bible personally within the faith community and, from the Catholic perspective, with the guidance of the Church.

A community of the Word, Groome suggests, giving children easy access to the Bible in various ways, provides an age-appropriate liturgy of the Word for children.

Third, the ministry of didache characterizes the congregation as a “village with a school,” which intentionally educates people of all ages in faith along with socializing them. Such a

“village” has an intentional “program” of religious education with a well-crafted curriculum. On the importance of such an intentional program, as examined earlier in this chapter, Groome maintains that the congregation needs “an effective and appropriate pedagogy—an intentional way of structuring teaching/learning events. … [I]t should nurture people’s Christian identity with a thorough knowledge of their faith and, conversely, teach the wisdom of the Christian story in ways likely to form faith identity.”151 The focus of religious education is that people reflect on and integrate their lived experiences with the Christian story in order to make a decision to renew their Christian faith in their personal and social lives for the sake of God’s reign. Although at the center of a community of the Word is the Christian story and vision, the ministry of kerygma, the ministry of didache requires an age-appropriate, spiral curriculum, which “constantly teaches the core themes of Christian faith in language understandable to each age level, and yet continues to deepen and expand as the years go by.”152 To effect children’s participation in didache in the congregation, Groome suggests the need not only for good preschool and grade-school basal

150 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 190. 151 Groome, “Total Catechesis/Religious Education,” 26. 152 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 195.

185 programs that reflect sound theology and effective pedagogy, but also qualified teachers who are well-prepared and resourced by training. Besides an intentional age-appropriate program, which is the main avenue for educating children in faith, there is also a need for regular intergenerational programs to make lifelong learning in faith available to all parishioners.

5. Assessing the Critical Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education

I have examined Groome’s critical reflective approach and how he understands children’s participation in that pedagogical process. I now assess his approach with a special focus on two aspects, the relational and pedagogical, attempting to find connections with intergenerational

Christian education, i.e., intentional intergenerationality and children’s participation and agency, in anticipation of the next chapter, which proposes an integrative approach to intergenerational

Christian education for Korean congregations with children.

5.1. Praxis- and Reflection-based Relational Turn

One of the most remarkable points Groome makes about relational issues is that he places an ontological and relational emphasis in the foreground of his dialectical approach to Christian education. Although he identifies the importance of the relational aspect of Christian education in his early work by drawing on philosophical and theological concepts, such as the reign of

God, “shared” praxis through dialogue, and the need for relational knowing and socialization, his main focus there was praxis- and reflection-based pedagogy in a classroom setting. However, in his later work, Groome reaffirms the crucial role of community-based education as found in total community catechesis, echoing the General Directory for Catechesis. It is especially worth

186 noting that his ontological/relational shift appears clearer in three areas than any others. Putting it chronologically: in epistemology (beings as agent-subjects-in-relationship), in theological anthropology (persons as partners in community), and in pedagogical enterprise (the total community catechesis). Groome thus provides a sound foundation for intergenerational Christian education in terms of an appreciation of both communality and critical reflection-action in congregational learning, or the “village with school,” to use his term.

Another point to note is that Groome appreciates the potential of all participants, who he sees as created by God as agents and equal members of the faith community. His appreciation of such potential, agency, and equality is affirmed in his insistence that congregational education should engage people of all ages in teaching and learning together. Regarding the place of children in his educational paradigm, Groome provides a solid theological rationale for children’s participation in congregational education as equal and spiritual participants. This rationale also sheds light on the reconstruction of intergenerational Christian education for

Korean congregations, which tend to be age-segregated and often regard children as mere learners and socializees.

One may wonder, however, if Groome’s notion of total community catechesis is inconsistent when the community-based educational paradigm is reviewed in light of children’s participation. For example, while he argues that people of all ages should be welcomed and included as equal members in the ministry of koinonia, he barely mentions how children might participate in other functions of ministry, such as diakonia, marturia, and leitourgia, making a spiritual contribution therein with their being and doing. Also, examining Groome’s explanation of the ministry of didache, which is a direct locus for reflective education in the congregation, one may wonder whether children play the role of learners and teachers, since he defines total

187 community catechesis as engaging “every member and all aspects of each community, by and for people of all ages, teaching and learning together for Christian faith.” Although he emphasizes the importance of a well-crafted age-appropriate basal curriculum and of preparing teachers and leaders for educating children, he appears silent over how children might contribute to intergenerational education as agents and mutual socializers. While it is clear that Groome upholds children’s participation and agency (“by and for people of all ages”), I emphasize that children need to be invited in creative and imaginative ways to all functions of educational ministry as part of the one body in Christ and as agent-subjects.

5.2. Reflective-Relational Pedagogical Approach

First and foremost, Groome places reflective pedagogy at the center of socialization and education, so that life and faith might be integrated. He moves beyond a simply socialized faith without intentionality and critical reflection toward the whole of Christian faith. The centrality of such reflective pedagogy has been evident in his community-based educational paradigm since

Sharing Faith, where he notes, “Wherever Christian religious education takes place—school, congregation, or family—it is to engage the very ‘being’ of participants as agent-subjects and include an activity of critical reflection.”153 This notion is expressed also in his notion of “faith- education consciousness” in all functions of ministry as the context of Christian education, which he describes as “substantive, reflective, and comprehensive” (italics added).154 As analyzed in chapter three, socialization/enculturation approaches, though not all, tend to focus only on the intentional formation of Christian identity and character, without paying serious attention to

153 Groome, Sharing Faith, 194. 154 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 162.

188 raising critical consciousness for mature Christian faith and praxis, as Groome does from the outset. Foster, for example, points out the purpose of intergenerational education events as

“essentially conservative, at times even defensive or protective in nature.” Such events are aimed at reclaiming “the more historical age-inclusive character of church life” and reflect more concern for cohesion within the faith community rather than its mission in the world.155 By contrast, an intentional implementation of creative and critical reflective pedagogy with commitment to the Christian faith, may empower participants of all ages to move beyond a focus on the cohesion of the faith community itself, toward practicing a renewed faith and service in their personal and social lives. This is also reaffirmed by what Groome identifies as a dual loyalties to conserving the Christian story as a priestly activity and liberating its vision as a prophetic activity.156 For this reason, I call his approach a reflective-relational model, because in his attempt to integrate socialization and education the priority is always given to the

“reflective,” which empowers people of all ages to foster critical reflection on personal and social praxis. This goes beyond faith community approaches, in that it integrates life and

Christian faith and participates in the process of meaning and decision making.

Second, Groome’s insistence on children’s participation in critical reflection adds an important insight to the discussion about intergenerational Christian education. While many intergenerational Christian education models appear silent about children’s agency and active participation in congregational learning—arguably because of their presumption that children possess insufficient cognitive capability, and because of their ambivalence towards children—

Groome’s positive position on children’s incipient capability for critical and creative reflection may lead educators to implement intergenerational Christian education in a more inclusive way.

155 Foster, “Intergenerational Christian Education,” 279, 284. 156 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 217.

189

Meanwhile, Groome does not examine children’s capacity for spiritual and reflective cognition beyond the classic Piagetian theories, by exploring contemporary research on children’s spiritual cognition “with a healthy skepticism” as undertaken in chapter two. Also, while he notes in his early work his intention to juxtapose people’s capability for critical reflection against Fowler’s six faith development stages, in order to find appropriate educational responses, and from a shared praxis perspective, no such work has as yet been completed. Here I would suggest that his viewpoint, if expressed, might resonate with those recent studies on children’s spiritual development I examined in chapter two, in terms of the way children make meaning and search spiritually with their felt senses.

Groome’s insistence on children’s capability for critical reflection raises an important issue embedded in intergenerational Christian education as a hidden curriculum, that is, a power issue. Here Foster refers to psychologist Virginia Satir’s notion that every person in the group has power and the whole group is affected by the behaviors and attitudes of each person regardless of age.157 He then argues that age should not be construed as an obstacle to full participation in the faith community. However, for this to operate in actuality, intergenerational

Christian education should intentionally encourage and promote reflective pedagogical events for people of all ages to grow and learn together in faith, something that is not taken very seriously in many intergenerational Christian education models.

The third point is closely related to an intergenerational issue. Since Groome proposes total community catechesis as an integration of socialization and reflective education for people of all ages, it should be noted that his intention is to foster the community-based paradigm as the avenue for lifelong education. Groome argues that “every person at every age needs and is

157 Foster, “Intergenerational Christian Education,” 279.

190 entitled to have competent, effective, and lifelong education in faith.”158 For Groome, the main aim of such lifelong education is to socialize and teach every Christian to grow in faith toward maturity in and with the whole community of faith, where they can share faith, work together in partnership, and learn from and with each other. This need for a lifelong journey is also glimpsed in the image of a pilgrim in time which, like Westerhoff, Groome draws.159

However, one may wonder if the lifelong education he proposes can be practiced in a genuinely intergenerational way. In other words, while he claims that every Christian participates in lifelong faith education as learners and teachers, Groome does not explicitly refer to mutual learning between adults and children. Although people of all ages are active participants and agents in the lifelong educational events, in this statement “lifelong” seems to mean an individual pedagogical journey “from childhood to adulthood,” with less attention to mutually

“intergenerational” learning. For instance, most examples he provides for children’s participation in reflective educational events take place in an age-separated or age-specific pedagogical settings, e.g. a fourth-grade class. If the congregation needs to promote a lifelong and mutually intergenerational congregational education with socialization and reflective education, an educational environment and planning for mutual learning needs to be created more seriously and deliberately. As explored in chapter one, the style of Jesus’ teaching is a “reversal” pedagogy of “power over,” to use Freire’s term, in that he welcomes children into a community of faith for mutual learning between adult disciples and marginalized children about spiritual wisdom for God’s reign.160 To this end, all participants are encouraged to create a secure and

158 Groome, Will There Be Faith? 80. 159 Groome, Christian Religious Education, 12–15. 160 Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 154. I draw on Freire’s concepts of “power over” and “power with” but the exact terms are referred to by Groome when he explains the political nature of educating pilgrims in time using Freire’s concepts. Groome, Christian Religious Education, 15.

191 hospitable space together in which to respect and share their own reflections on their lived faith and lives. In such a secure space, children are invited not only to answer questions and participate in questioning activities provided by a facilitator, but also to ask their own questions arising from their reflections. Considering Groome’s emphasis on building a teaching/learning community of active participation, conversation, and presentation through the life to Faith to life approach, the approach needs to be directed in a more mutually intergenerational sense, that is, using his own term, with “intergenerational faith-education consciousness” in mutual and active interactions among people of all ages. With this assessment of Groome’s approach in mind, in chapter five I propose an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education for

Korean congregations with children.

Chapter 5 A Relational-Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education

In this chapter I propose an integrated model of intergenerational Christian education, which I call a relational-reflective approach, in light of the biblical, theological, and theoretical aspects explored in the previous chapters. As I pointed out in Chapter three, existing intergenerational Christian education models need to be challenged in terms of children’s presence and agency. Also, for a holistic approach to intergenerational Christian education, critical reflective pedagogy needs to be taken seriously as an essential part of the educational practice of the Korean Presbyterian church. Here I will not seek to set out a comprehensive paradigm for all intergenerational Christian education; such work goes beyond the bounds of the present study. Instead, my intention is to propose a model of intergenerational pedagogy based on what I have found from the previous chapters, providing suggestions for a specific target, which is Korean congregations with children.

1. Defining a Relational-Reflective Approach to Intergenerational Christian Education

For intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations, I propose a relational-reflective approach. I define a relational-reflective model as an alternative approach for Korean congregations with children that helps people of all ages become active learners and agents in the faith community, through welcoming each other, reflecting on their lived faith critically, and mutually empowering one another to live transformative lives and engage in prophetic work together in the world.

192

193

The term relational-reflective means forming people of all ages in Korean congregations as one body in Christ by inviting them to reflect critically on the Christian stories and visions and make meaning together in a faith community that has formative power in the Spirit. The terms relational and reflective are complementary rather than irreconcilable when harmonizing

Christian socialization and reflective pedagogy. The term relational refers to intergenerational

Christian congregations having the sort of educational power that can inform and transform them in faith, while the term reflective means people of all ages make meaning of their experiences and spiritual quests and are empowered in light of the Christian stories. This complementary approach does not just juxtapose two different approaches, sacrificing the uniqueness of each, or ignoring the dynamics between them without any creative effort to harmonize them. Such dynamics should be seen not only as inevitable but also as creatively indispensable.

Groome attempts to harmonize socialization and reflective pedagogy by describing the relation between socialization/enculturation (the relational approach) and critical reflective pedagogy (the reflective approach) as dialectical. He also considers the possibility of children’s participation in reflective pedagogy, but he does so only in a homogeneous age-group educational setting, not an intergenerational one. While I agree with Groome’s argument that critical reflective pedagogy should not be an ancillary method in Christian education, I criticize the way he places reflective pedagogy at the center of total community catechesis, with less emphasis on the communal, intergenerational aspect.

I argue instead that the proposed relational-reflective approach emphasizes forming people of all ages as one body in Christ in an age-segregated faith community by inviting both adults and children to communal, intergenerational reflective pedagogy as active learners and

194 agents. For this reason, I call my approach a relational-reflective approach to intergenerational

Christian education.

The phrase welcoming each other in the definition above means building an inclusive community for people of different ages and sociocultural backgrounds. When it comes to

“intergenerational” Christian community, a congregation with children consciously recognizes that they are and should be an inclusive community of believers that includes both adults and children in light of the eschatological Christian stories revealed in Jesus’ teaching and ministry.

In a generation-fragmented Korean society, it is crucial to build a truly intergenerational faith community with special attention to inclusiveness and openness.

A truly intergenerational faith community welcomes people of all ages with mutual hospitality and subversive discipleship, regardless of their biological and cognitive capabilities and sociocultural differences. Mutual hospitality is essential in building a genuine community as one body in Christ. I argue that mutual hospitality includes not only adult participants welcoming young people, but also young children welcoming adults if the congregation is to see the relationship with children as a labor of love, that is, mutual love between young and old.

Building such a community requires acknowledgement of the limitations and contributions each participant brings from their being and experiences. Such hospitality is not limited by people’s capabilities but can be expanded by recognizing and accepting each other as partners and co- pilgrims in their spiritual journeys. This should be also done by welcoming the least, such as children, who are thought of more as minors and potential-but-not-prepared members than active agents in the faith community.

In a Christian community strongly influenced by an authoritarian culture like Korea, it is crucial to weave the threads of the generations in a horizontal and respectful way. Such weaving

195 of horizontal threads includes practicing a subversive order in the faith community, not only welcoming the least in the midst of one’s pedagogical and ecclesial practices, much as Jesus placed a little child in the midst of the male adult-centered disciple community, but also welcoming them into the faith community as moral and spiritual agents who have the potential for an important impact upon the whole congregation within a range fitting to their age and circumstance as full persons and God’s representatives. The faith community should create a secure place for people of all ages to love and learn together in faith. A genuine intergenerational faith community should regard not only adults as learners in congregational education, but also see children as active participants whose contribution to building a holistic community is often overlooked or even ignored. Thus, a relational-reflective pedagogy can reveal what a welcoming community looks like and how it works for transformed lives and prophetic collaboration in the world for the reign of God. It can do so by beginning to name the current position of the faith community in light of a biblical vision of true intergenerationality in faith, and by encouraging people to reflect critically and creatively on the visions that are shared and practiced through pedagogical practices. Thus, welcoming one other is itself a transformative practice through which people of all ages begin to be empowered to live a Christian life and vocation.

The phrase reflecting on their lived faith critically refers to inviting people of all ages to name and reflect critically on their life experiences from their spiritual and existential quests, thereby making meaning of their lived faith in light of the Christian stories. By inviting people of all ages to do this, the faith community acknowledges and respects their beings as well as their capabilities for reflecting critically on their lives and their quests, discerned through the guidance of Christian stories. In the process of reflective pedagogical practices, all participants are led to make meaning of their lived faith. Also, it is important for the faith community to encourage all

196 to make their voices heard by others living in Korea’s extremely competitive, hierarchical society.

In particular, listening respectfully to children’s spiritual and theological reflections requires Korean congregations to take a bold step forward in recognizing that young people have their own spiritual and existential quests, even if these are not as complex as those of adults. By reflecting on their lives and quests in light of Christian stories, both adults and children are encouraged to make meaning of the gospel they learn and share through a relational-reflective pedagogy. This approach invites people of all ages to reflect and make meaning of their lives both inside and outside the faith community.

The phrase mutually empowering one another in the definition means giving people of all ages the “power” to make decisions and encourage one another to live and work together in the faith community and the world. In the Scriptures, the empowered faith community is called by the Spirit of Christ to encourage people of all ages to decide to live transformative Christian lives. It also means that they intentionally try to interact with and empower each other to live transformative and prophetic lives in the world. Empowerment includes appreciation of children’s agency in the relational-reflective educational practices. In these practices, children’s spiritual and moral agency plays a crucial role in revealing godly grace and wisdom as God’s representatives, as well as being a source of religious knowledge and revelation through their vulnerability and presence. In this matter, I argue that such pedagogy should move beyond being to and for children and become being with and by children. Thus, a relational-reflective Christian pedagogy can enable Korean congregations with children to appreciate children’s agency in the pedagogical process.

197

The final phrase of the definition to live transformative lives and engage in prophetic work together in the world indicates the goal of the relational-reflective pedagogy, i.e., that people of all ages are called to work together as partners and coworkers empowered by the Spirit for the sake of God’s transformative mission in the world. As coworkers, people of all ages can participate in godly collaboration for transformative and prophetic lives in the world. Such collaboration is indebted to biblical visions in which both young and old people discover in the

Spirit God’s judgement and promise and are encouraged to respond to the promise in their lives

(Joel 2:28-32). And those who build a genuine intergenerational faith community are called to act together as “collaborators” in a ministry of harmony, a ministry that builds an inclusive community in which people welcome and love one another with hospitality, share and interweave their lives in light of the Christian stories, and reconcile broken relationships in the world. A relational-reflective Christian pedagogy encourages and empowers people of all ages to live out the transformative mission of God together.

Given the outline of a relational-reflective approach, I explain how this model can reconceptualize intergenerational Christian education, that is, context, teacher/learner, and pedagogical methods.

2. Context: Intergenerational Congregation as Faith Community of Caritas

An intergenerational congregation is a crucial locus for forming and educating people of all ages to learn and grow together in faith, and for empowering them to commit to transformative lives and prophetic vocation in the community and society. However, an intergenerational faith community does not mean merely gathering different generations together into a group or intergenerational educational setting. Instead it means inviting people of all

198 ages—from young children to adults—as subjects, to build and encourage an inclusive faith community of love and growth through intentional pedagogical practices. To be a true intergenerational faith community, the notion of intergenerationality needs to be reconceptualized in terms of intentionally welcoming people of all ages as active participants and agents in mutual love and meaningful dialogue within the community. By “intentional” I mean that people of all ages in the congregation recognize the purpose and value of being a welcoming community of faith and actively participate in building such a community of love and care. As

Miller-McLemore puts it, such an intentionally intergenerational community is a community of caritas, that is, one of mutual love and compassion between the generations, including between adults and children. This ethical pedagogical effort cannot be ideally symmetric; it involves mutual but asymmetric accommodating—“making room for others” in a secure, hospitable space between the generations, especially between old and young people.1 Thus, a truly intergenerational faith community and all educational events in that community become the essential context for learning in faith, as well as the curriculum by which the congregation participates in sharing the Christian faith. This is not just through transmission of theological ideas and values “from generation to generation,” but also through intentional faith-forming interaction “between generations” toward a genuinely inclusive community of welcoming and mutual love.

Based on the exploration of the previous chapters, congregations with children in Korea should pursue three characteristics in order to be an intentional and genuine community of faith and love. First, Korean congregations with children need to seek an identity as a Christian

1 Gareth Crispin, “Intergenerational Communities and a Theology of Accommodation,” in InterGenerate: Transforming Churches through Intergenerational Ministry, ed. Holly Catterton Allen (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2018), sec. 4, Kindle.

199 community in which people of all ages are called to be one body in Christ. Such an intergenerational community believes that “we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Rom 12:5) through love of Christ, regardless of age and sociocultural experiences. As communal beings created by God, congregations are called to form and educate people of all ages to practice equal, mutual partnerships and also to be a courageous community and face their own vulnerability and difference. Only in so doing can they have genuine interaction between the generations and grow together in faith.

Second, Korean congregations with children should recognize their pedagogical role as a crucial context and curriculum for intergenerational Christian educational practice. As Foster puts it, the intergenerational congregation should create a “catechetical culture” where people of all ages freely and voluntarily learn and grow in faith and practice Christian ways of life empowering one another to participate in God’s transformative works in the world.

Third, Korean congregations with children can be empowering communities for people of all ages who practice caritas, not only in their own congregations, but also in the world, by committing themselves to living transformative lives and engaging in prophetic works for harmony. This ministry of harmony primarily begins in a truly inclusive and welcoming community that proclaims the good news of liberation and practices hospitality and story- interweaving. The empowered people of all ages in that community then decide to serve the wider community as collaborators and partners.

3. Learners and Teachers: People of All Ages as Learners and Pedagogical Agents

Congregations with children participate in intergenerational Christian educational practice as both learners and pedagogical agents, active subjects who play a facilitating or

200 teaching role, traditionally understood as the role of teachers. In a faith community that sees itself as both relational and reflective, people of all ages are basically understood as learners who are taught by God. This view then prompts the faith community to challenge the dichotomized perspective prevalent in congregational learning settings based on Confucian hierarchical values, where adults play a teaching role and children are the learners. For that reason, Korean congregations tend to justify a hierarchical, age-segregated pedagogical setting as most effective to both adults and children.

However, the two-fold perspective outlined above supports a new idea: that both adults and children are not only learners as children of God, but can also be pedagogical agents in intergenerational educational practices. As illustrated in the narrative about welcoming children in the community of faith, Jesus invites them as pedagogical agents with their “being” and disposition to teach adult learners, who are leaders and parents. Also, when Jesus placed a child in the midst of his disciples to teach them what the reign of God looks like, the child became a crucial catalyst revealing their twisted desires and helping them envision the true nature of discipleship. Although children in these narratives appear silent, that should not mean they are merely a medium for teaching, or passive learners, because Jesus welcomes them as persons and blesses them with a heartful touch, thereby transforming the disciple community. In an intentional, reflective setting, children can be pedagogical agents by showing their curiosity, bringing their intuitive perspective and questions, and sharing their reflections with other participants in their simple, concrete words. Likewise, in order for a relational-reflective approach to empower people of all ages to practice God’s transformative works, it should welcome children as active learners and pedagogical agents with a catalytic role in an age-

201 segregated congregational. In this way, welcoming children can become a critical catalyst in challenging and transforming an intergenerational community and its pedagogical practices.

For Korean congregations with children, I suggest four ways in which both adults and children play the role of pedagogical agents. First, considering children as pedagogical agents encourages us to overcome the structures and identity of the age-segmented Christian pedagogy.

Children can play a crucial role as agents in intergenerational Christian education by bringing their own spiritual quests and reflection on Christian beliefs and lives. When the community of faith listens carefully to children’s voices and reflections, which are experienced through their spiritual senses, they are invited to become active participants in educational practices, rather than simply included as listeners or passive learners.

Second, acknowledging children as pedagogical agents enables us to reconsider existing educational content and methods in a more intergenerational way. Many Christian educational materials and methods currently in use are grounded in a traditional understanding of children’s religious thinking, which underestimates their capability for spiritual awareness. This misconception leads to a learning community of faith that separates children from adults in its congregational educational practices, as is mostly seen in Bible study materials published for the age-segregated Sunday school system. Listening to and respecting children as spiritual and pedagogical agents can thus help educators develop new intergenerational educational methods and practices.

Third, people of all ages teach and learn in the congregation through intergenerational relationships and intentional socialization. Many Korean congregations with children still maintain hierarchical relationships in various ways, for example, between adults and children, men and women, pastors, and laypersons, and so on. The hierarchical relationships largely

202 caused by Confucianism prevent people of different ages from learning and encouraging each other in faith. Such relationships also imply that religious socialization takes place in a unidirectional way, that is, from adults or people who have authority to socialize others towards children or people who are less socialized. However, it is important to understand, as Boyatzis contends in his research into children’s spiritual development, intergenerational learning takes place in a bidirectional way, with adults and children reciprocally influencing each other. For this reason, I argue that through various pedagogical practices, congregations with children in

Korea can learn that being and learning together is a mutual blessing for both adults and children.

Finally, people of all ages teach and learn in the congregation through intergenerational critical reflection. Korean congregations with children too often presume that children cannot or can barely reflect on the spiritual and moral issues occurring around their lives and in the Korean society. They also presume that Christian adults have enough knowledge and experience to reflect and face such issues based on the Christian tradition. However, in reality, I observe that it is not always true. As Miller-McLermore points out, children are spiritual and moral agents in their own lives as well as in communal activities. Studies on spiritual awareness in children also support the point that children can make meaning and conduct spiritual questing regarding their existential issues in their own ways. Groome points out that both Christian adults and children need critical reflection to move beyond a conventional faith. When people of all ages in Korean congregations participate in intergenerational Christian educational practice in both relational and reflective ways, they can receive spiritual benefits from each other and grow together in faith.

203

4. Methods: Relational-Reflective Pedagogical Practices for Intergenerational Christian

Community

In the last section I propose three pedagogical practices for Korean congregations with children using a relational-reflective approach. I want to point out that these three practices are not comprehensive, but they provide a possible direction for designing a more inclusive, dialogical pedagogy for Korean congregations with children. The three practices I propose are pedagogical practices of hospitality, story-interweaving, and collaboration.

4.1. “Welcoming People of All Ages to a Community of Faith and Growth”: Pedagogical

Practice of Hospitality

The pedagogical practice of hospitality is an intentional and communal practice I propose as part of the relational-reflective approach to intergenerational Christian education. In this pedagogical practice, hospitality is understood as “welcoming people of all ages to the communal practice of educating as learners and pedagogical agents in the faith community which is called to build one body in Christ.” As illustrated in Jesus’ ministry in Mark 10:13-16,

Jesus welcomed children who were “strangers” to the faith community in the eyes of the adult disciples. For the disciples, these children as strangers were yet unprepared to join the community which Paul depicts as a body of Christ. It was Jesus’ teaching that made the disciples reflect on the meaning of entering the reign of God through welcoming the marginalized to the learning community. In this sense, hospitality in intergenerational learning means, as Ana Maria

204

Pineda notes, providing “a space where the stranger is taken in and known as one who bears gifts.”2

Given the meaning of hospitality, this pedagogical practice focuses explicitly on the relational task of welcoming people of all ages into an intergenerational learning process.

However, the pedagogical task is also undertaken in a reflective way, which means participants reflect on the meaning of participating in the process of intergenerational Christian pedagogy by bringing their own perspectives and contributions to bear. In other words, while the former task is performed by congregants’ engaging in intergenerational learning, the latter is performed by reflecting on the process. It is important to consider these two tasks essential in this pedagogical practice, because so often in planning and participating in an “intergenerational” learning children’s beings and voices are missing or hardly heard. Therefore, when a congregation with children seeks to create such a space for strangers and the marginalized in its intergenerational pedagogical practice, it is not sufficient to invite people of all ages to one-off formative activities, such as a one-night intergenerational event or an annual intergenerational camp. This practice should be performed consistently throughout the entire educational ministry as both explicit and hidden curriculum, and it should encourage the entire congregation with children to reflect together on their present educational practice as a process of building one body in Christ, as well as of transforming it into an inclusive community for people of all ages to learn and grow together. In this sense, a pedagogical practice of hospitality should encourage the congregation to welcome children, who are supposedly not-yet-prepared members of the faith community, into the congregational education as active learners and participants, and also provide opportunities for the congregation to respect their presence and pedagogical agency.

2 Ana Maria Pineda, “Hospitality,” in Practicing Our Faith: A Way of Life for a Searching People, ed. Dorothy C. Bass, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2019), chap. 3, sec. 1, Kindle.

205

The pedagogical practice of hospitality includes two processes: 1) an inclusive planning of a pedagogical practice for people of all ages and 2) communal reflection on a pedagogical practice process with people of all ages. It is important to note that these two processes are generally performed as aspects of educational planning in the congregation, but can also be intentional pedagogical practices of hospitality for people of all ages and with and by them.

The first process is an inclusive planning of the pedagogical practice of hospitality for people of all ages. This process may be compared to White’s facilitation committee,3 but it is perhaps closer to the preparation movement in Foster’s congregational education in terms of its positioning in the essential process of pedagogy, i.e., it is not just the auxiliary function of preparing an educational setting.4 This initial pedagogical practice is arranged by facilitators who do not usually include children at this time. The goal of this practice is to plan intergenerational learning in an inclusive way. For this, a planning committee may ask the following questions on their current practice: who participates in intergenerational learning in the congregation?

(learners). In the ongoing practice, who and what values are excluded in that educational setting, and why? (discerning null curriculum). What educational environment is needed for intergenerational learning? (hidden curriculum/context).5 What criteria are considered when choosing educational content and generative themes? (evaluation). This process can itself be part of a pedagogical practice of hospitality rather than a process of preparation, in terms of creating a secure space for people of all ages to gather as one body in Christ.

3 White, Intergenerational Religious Education, 160–171. 4 In my view, the preparation movement needs to change its title because it can lead people to think that that it is not an essential part of congregational education but an auxiliary process. 5 Elliot Eisner, The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs (New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994), 87–98. The implicit or hidden curriculum refers to the tacit or implicit values, norms, and procedures that are not explicitly taught, but nevertheless exist in the educational setting. The null curriculum refers to values or ideas that are absent, or in some cases ignored, in the educational setting.

206

The second process is communal reflection on ongoing pedagogical practices with and by people of different ages. While inclusive education planning is organized before the start of a pedagogical practice, communal reflection is practiced in the middle or at the end of educational sessions to help people of all ages learn and participate better. For example, representatives from various age groups in a pedagogical practice could review how intergenerational learning events are and how they might become more inclusive and hospitable in order to allow different voices to be heard. In such communal reflection, the following questions may be asked: does the pedagogical practice deal with the educational and ecclesial needs of participants of all ages?

Who was welcomed in the educational setting, and who was not? What would change if people of different age groups were invited to share their experiences and reflection in faith?

As in the case of education planning, young people rarely have the opportunity to participate in such a communal reflection process for congregational learning. The communal reflection on pedagogical practice can be itself a significant practice of hospitality, providing all participants, including children, with an opportunity to learn how to care for each other in their educational journey. On the one hand, through communal reflection in a secure and hospitable sphere, both old and young can learn how they are interrelated and how people with different ages have various learning experiences and needs. This pedagogical practice could lead to consideration, especially by adult participants, of ways people of all ages can participate in intergenerational learning, bringing their gifts and even their vulnerability, and thus discovering the meaning of what Jesus taught us when he said, “Let the children come to me.” When all participants are able to make a contribution, and their voices and reflections are respectfully heard, learning becomes more meaningful.

207

4.2. “Interweaving a Bojagi Together”: Pedagogical Practice of Story-Interweaving

The practice of story-interweaving encourages people of all ages to bring their faith stories and spiritual quests and reflect on them in light of the Christian stories in order to make meaning in their personal and communal lives. By story-interweaving I mean a two-fold pedagogical action: one is to interweave the Christian stories narrated in the Scripture and tradition with the stories and quests experienced in our own lives, and another is to interweave various stories of lived faith from people of all ages through dialogue and critical reflection.

Because of this two-fold characteristic, I prefer the term interweaving to the term weaving: the former refers to combining two or more components by weaving them together in a complex way while the latter refers to forming or composing a whole by interlacing strands or strips or connecting elements. Likewise, story-interweaving in an intergenerational educational setting is more complex than in a homogeneous setting because it invites multilayered stories and quests from people of different ages and sociocultural experiences, and reflects on these from various angles in light of the Christian stories.

Artistically speaking, interweaving stories and the quests of people of all ages can be likened to interweaving a Bojagi, which is a wrapping cloth made from colorful threads and a variety of materials and fabrics and patterns. There are various types of Bojagi in Korea, and each one reflects its own social, cultural, economic, and religious background. As a Korean-style patchwork, Bojagi is not only beautiful as it is, but also practical: flexible, varied in size, and useful for wrapping and carrying various objects. For this reason, Bojagi can work as a metaphor for intergenerational Christian education, a metaphor that wraps the faith community with people of all ages as one body, connecting and interweaving their various stories and visions.

208

Likewise, considering the importance of hospitality in creating a secure place for all participants, the pedagogical practice of story-interweaving is an intentional reflective dialogue through which the Christian stories and participants’ lived faith stories and quests are respectfully heard and shared in various ways. When the story-interweaving is intentionally practiced by people of all ages, the Bojagi can be formed as a beautiful multi-dimensional work rather than something monotone, as it would be if made by a homogeneous age group.

To implement a pedagogical practice of story-interweaving, Korean congregations with children should consider three factors: narrative, language, and power issues.

First, when it comes to narrative, Korean congregations with children need to emphasize the central role of the Christian stories. Symbolically speaking, it is the Christian stories that are the central piece of the entire Bojagi, a piece that penetrates our own stories with threads of

God’s grace and love. Only when God’s eschatological stories are first listened to and inscribed in the heart of God’s people of all ages in the Spirit, can they then respond to and participate in the prophetic functions.

Korean congregations with children also need to realize that narrative is a shared constructive story reflecting their lived faith experience. In recognizing the central role of the

Christian stories, Korean congregations with children can participate in dialogue through which their life experiences and spiritual quests are shared and reflected in a communal way. In story- interweaving as an intergenerational pedagogical practice, a reflective dialogue occurs through a process of mutually remembering, reasoning, and imagining. Through critical reflection, both adults and children interweave the threads of the Christian stories and their lived faith and

209 spiritual quests as co-weavers, remembering what they have heard, reflecting on what they have done, and imagining what they will do together in the community and the world.6

Second, in a practice of story-interweaving, language is an issue we carefully consider.

Speaking the Christian language is important for expressing what has been learned and discerned from the Christian stories in and sharing this with each other in the Christian community. As

Jerome Berryman puts it, a space for story-interweaving is a place that gives people of all ages

“the gift of classical Christian language to help them create ultimate meaning from what they experience of God’s presence.”7 In reality, we observe that young children sometimes stretch the language they have to approximate what is beyond language.8 But that does not mean that children do not and cannot participate in their relationship with God. As found in children’s spiritual awareness studies, children can make meaning and carry out spiritual questing through their felt senses, that is, in embodied ways. In some situations, language means not only verbal but also non-verbal language, such as art, music, poetry, or even sharing the pictures people of all ages take with their cellphones.

Concerning the language issue, intergenerational story-interweaving does not mean downgrading language levels for children. As Foster points out, intergenerational Christian education needs to approach the language issue from the vantage point of all the ages, not just from that of children.9 By appreciating verbal and nonverbal language as a means of participating in both socialization and critical reflection, the pedagogical practice of story-

6 A good example of co-remembering in intergenerational relationship is dramatically illustrated in an animation movie Coco (2018). In the movie, a twelve-year-old boy, Miguel, sings a song titled “Remember me” to his great-great-grandmother who is so old as well as low in spirits because of deeply missing her father with whom she sang the song. The boy’s song reminds her of her father, and they sing the song together as a practice of commemorating and co-remembering. 7 Berryman, Becoming like a Child, chap. 3, sec. 1, Kindle. 8 Berryman, Becoming like a Child, chap. 3, sec. 1, Kindle. 9 Foster, “Intergenerational Religious Education,” 287.

210 interweaving can provide people of all ages with opportunities to speak the Christian language by sharing the Christian stories. It can also help people make meaning of their lived faith in creative, simple, or unexpected ways, as Jesus taught people of all ages his entire life. It is through Jesus Christ as an accommodated symbol for people10 that we come to know the meaning of God’s mysterious and marvellous grace through which we are all called to be God’s children. Likewise, in order to listen to what children tell and share with adults and vice versa, congregations with children should foster a culture of “mutual accommodation.”11 It should also be noted, as Groome points out, that some adults are not fluent in speaking the Christian language and need to learn it from children who often speak of what they learn from the

Christian stories in a simple, and sometimes profound way. In this sense, story-interweaving can be a pedagogical process for people of all ages, not only for learning the Christian faith, but also the Christian language, both from the Scriptures and from each other.

Three, Korean congregations with children need to look at whether there are power issues in story-interweaving. For example, some adults might feel it is inappropriate if children participate in reflection on issues of inequality in the congregation. Yet as Freire argues, if “an educational system allows only the few to become literate and critical it is a system which maintains oppression and inequality.”12 Thus Korean congregations with children need to consider Nelson’s insistence that Christians “live in a postmodern society [that] has become illiterate theologically and biblically.” Here a power issue arises in relation to children’s participation in critical dialogue and reflection. As Couture argues, intergenerational relationships require “the deepest kind of friendship that invites the mutuality of power

10 John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 13, bk. 1, no. 1, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960), 121. 11 Crispin, “Intergenerational Communities and a Theology of Accommodation,” sec. 3, Kindle. 12 Smidt, Introducing Freire, 53.

211 rearrangements.” 13 In this sense, during a pedagogical practice of story-interweaving, Korean congregations with children need to be open, and prepared to be friends with one another across the generations and also to listen to each other’s voices respectfully.

Three Levels of Pedagogical Practice of Story-interweaving

For Korean congregations with children, pedagogical story-interweaving can be practiced on three levels: the personal and existential level, the communal level, and the sociohistorical level. First, people of all ages participate in reflection on their personal and existential experiences through interweaving their stories with the Christian stories. As explored in chapter

2, not only adults, but also young children may struggle with existential problems in their lives, for example, issues such as relationships, loneliness, or even death of a family member or pet.

Both adults and children may also undergo spiritual questing directly related to Christian identity and moral issues, something people of all ages experience in the Korean context. Although participants’ existential concerns may be different depending on age and social and spiritual experiences, they can learn they are connected to each other as one body in Christ by reflecting together on personal issues and by being cared for in the faith community.

Second, at the communal level, Korean congregations with children focus directly on congregational experiences. Many Korean congregations are challenged by intergenerational issues within the church, such as the disconnection between children’s and youth ministry and the entire congregational education and ministry, the absence or thin layers of intergenerational ties, and generational conflicts, to name a few. As mentioned in connection with the pedagogical practice of hospitality, these congregational issues need to be reflected in any intergenerational

13 Couture, Seeing Children, Seeing God, 70.

212 congregational pedagogy in light of the Christian stories, which are the primary resources of story-interweaving. Rather than keeping difficult issues away from young people, I argue that such issues should be dealt with through a practice of intergenerational story-interweaving, resulting in better answers for people of all ages, and healthy Christian communities built as one body in Christ.

Third, people of all ages participate in reflection on their historical and sociocultural experiences by interweaving their stories with the Christian stories. Many Korean families with children in the congregation have a hard time balancing their Christian identity and their goals in society. For instance, credentialism is a serious problem in Korea for both Christians and non-

Christians. It heavily influences Korean congregations and their Christian education, and results in a drastic decrease of in child and youth membership, loss of Christian identity, and loss of intergenerational reflection on the problem, etc. A surprising aspect of this phenomenon is that credentialism and its huge impact on the congregation is rarely reflected upon in the Korean educational setting even though it results in generational segregation and spiritual disconnection in the faith community. In addition, when people of all ages participate in story-interweaving, their reflective lenses are not value-free, but are substantially shaped and influenced by the social values of credentialism, elitism, and consumerism. For this reason, through the practice of story- interweaving, Korean congregations with children need to be encouraged to discern historical and social problems as well as their own values, whether or not these positively influence their

Christian identity and vocation. Such a practice can potentially also empower them to seek alternatives both for the congregation and for the broader Korean society.

4.3. “Collaboration Beyond the Wall”: Pedagogical Practice of Collaboration

213

The practice of collaboration is an action-oriented practice in intergenerational Christian pedagogy. The most significant aspect of this practice is intergenerational participants recognizing themselves as collaborators in transforming lives and in a prophetic vocation, and figuring out ways that they can work together to serve those who struggle with brokenness. In this matter, it is crucial to perceive and remove the wall in participants’ consciousness, which results in children being seen as observers or unprepared, and on the waiting list to work together with adults in the future. Just as Christ broke the dividing wall between those who were far off

(Eph 2:14) and those who were near to make them one, participants in the pedagogical practice of collaboration should be empowered not only to consciously remove any obstacles that prevent them from thinking they are called to be collaborators, but also to call them to work together for the ministry of harmony.

The pedagogical practice of collaboration has two steps. The first step is for people of all ages to recognize themselves as coworkers and partners empowered by the Spirit for the sake of

God’s transformative mission and vocation in the world. In a truly intergenerational faith community, people of all ages are called to form a new family, in which “whoever does the will of God” is the brother and sister and mother of Jesus (Mark 3:34), Likewise, beyond conventional relationships in the faith community, such as parent-child relationships or those of kinship, newly redefined relationships are needed in Korean congregations to empower people to collaborate as coworkers in a ministry of harmony in the world. As identified in the discussion about story-interweaving, a genuinely intergenerational faith community can begin to appreciate both old and young people as coworkers and partners who participate in reflecting on and sharing their personal, communal, and sociohistorical experiences.

214

The second step in the pedagogical practice of collaboration is to empower people of all ages to make decisions and live transformative Christian lives and vocation. One of the most important ways to empower people of all ages is to experiment with and participate in transformative practices in the midst of their personal, communal, and sociohistorical life situations. Participating in a practice itself has a pedagogical function, through which both adults and children can make decisions and be empowered to live transformative Christian lives. It is crucial to provide people of all ages with opportunities to reflect on the meaning they found in the practice of story-interweaving. Not only through various events within the faith community, but also by engagement in work in the world, both adults and children can learn how to work together as relational-reflective collaborators. In this sense, the wider community can be a context in which adults and children see each other as partners. In this way, a pedagogical practice of collaboration enables Korean congregations with children to move beyond being to and for children, towards being with and by children in terms of respecting them as partners in

God’s transformative mission.

Further, a pedagogical practice of collaboration can encourage Korean congregations with children to participate together in the ministry of harmony. Although Korean society, as well as Korean congregations, are not homogenous in terms of race, sociohistorical experience, and religion, they tend to neglect and marginalize those who are different from them. To deal with this sociocultural problem, Korean congregations with children can reflect on their public roles as coworkers through a pedagogical practice of collaboration. As Miller-McLemore puts it, both children and adults can identify their Christian identity as spiritual and moral agents.

Further, if we can accept Joyce Mercer’s bold illustration of children’s spirituality as a metaphor of “activism” which describes “children whose spiritual lives take shape primarily in relation to

215 action,” 14 we may also see participants in the practice of collaboration as “activists” for the ministry of harmony. My suggestion is that a pedagogical practice of collaboration with children can start by claiming participants’ own sociohistorical experiences and the religious background of their lives and the communities they live in, reflecting how diverse their experiences and backgrounds are, in spite of the fact we tend to assume Korean society and its congregations are homogeneous. Participants can also reflect on who is included as part of the majority in those situations, and who is marginalized, and why. They are then encouraged to act out what Jesus empowered all his disciples to do in the midst of their lives. In this sense, acting out our spirituality with children can be a good way for which Korean congregations to join in the practice of collaboration for harmony through intergenerational Christian education.

14 Joyce Mercer, “Children as Mystics, Activists, Sages, and Holy Fools: Understanding the Spirituality of Children and Its Significance for Clinical Work,” Pastoral Psychology 54, no. 5 (May 2006), 499.

Conclusion

This dissertation has attempted to propose a relational-reflective approach to intergenerational Christian education for Korean congregations with children. The aim is to begin to delineate what the components of such a pedagogy can bring about. It thus contributes to the growing area of intergenerational Christian education by proposing a constructive framework for congregational learning with children.

As an interdisciplinary study, this dissertation brings new insights to intergenerational

Christian education through an exploration of theologies of children and of cognitive developmental research, in order to consider the place and voices of the marginalized in congregational learning and to reshape Christian educational theories and practices for people of all ages, particularly children.

Also, I hope that this study will offer some important insights for an integrative approach to intergenerational Christian education, by not taking an either/or approach to socialization and critical reflection, but instead being integrative for people of all ages.

This study also fills a gap in the scholarship of Christian education by proposing an intergenerational educational model for a non-Western context. There are a few studies on intergenerational Christian education undertaken in the North America context, yet hardly any on intergenerational educational practice with children aimed at non-Western Christian congregations.

Finally, this study has practical implications, in that it encourages Korean congregations to consider how they might revitalize intergenerational Christian education, and build an inclusive, empowering community of faith for people of all ages for the reign of God.

216

217

Furthermore, this study contributes to congregations in other places, not only in Korea, with similar pedagogical, multicultural, and intercultural issues, that also struggle with educating people of all ages in faith due to generational fragmentation as well as those. Finally, such an inclusive intergenerational Christian education can provide a good model for harmonizing the segregated generations in Korean society, a society that has struggled with various conflicts and divisions throughout history, by respecting and interweaving various voices from different generations in light of the Christian stories and by collaborating together to create a genuine intergenerational and harmonious community.

Bibliography

1. The primary literature

Alanen, Leena. “Childhood and Intergenerationality: Toward an Intergenerational Perspective on Child Well-being." In Handbook of Child Well-being: Theories, Methods and Policies in Global Perspective, edited by Asher Ben-Arieh et al, 131–160. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2014.

–––. “Theorizing Childhood.” Childhood 21, no. 1 (January 2014): 3–6.

Allen, Holly Catterton. “Bringing the Generations Together: Support from Learning Theory.” Christian Education Journal 2.2 (Fall 2005): 319–333.

–––, ed. Intergenerate: Transforming Churches Through Intergenerationality Ministry. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2018.

Allen, Holly Catterton and Christine Lawton Ross. Intergenerational Christian Education: Bringing the Whole Church Together in Ministry, Community and Worship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVasity Press, 2012.

Balswick, Jack O., Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer. The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Il: IVP Academic, 2015.

Barrett, Justin L, Roxanne M. Newman and Rebekah A. Richert. "When Seeing Is Not Believing: Children’s Understanding of Humans’ and Non-Humans’ Use of Background Knowledge in Interpreting Visual Displays." Journal of Cognition and Culture 3, no. 1 (2003): 91–108.

Barrett, Justin L and Rebekah A. Richert. "Anthropomorphism or Preparedness? Exploring Children's God Concepts." Review of Religious Research 44, no. 3 (Mar 2003): 300–312.

Bass, Dorothy C., ed. Practicing Our Faith: A Way of Life for a Searching People. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Fortress Press, 2010.

Bass, Dorothy C., and Craig R. Dykstra, eds. For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.

Berryman, Jerome W. Becoming Like a Child: The Curiosity of Maturity Beyond the Norm. New York: Church Publishing, 2017.

Boyatzis, Chris J. "Children’s Spiritual Development: Advancing the Field in Definition, Measurement, and Theory." In Nurturing Children’s Spirituality: Christian Perspectives

218

219

and Best Practice, edited by Holly Catterton Allen, 43–57. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008.

–––. "Examining Religious and Spiritual Development During Childhood and Adolescence." In International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, Care, and Wellbeing, edited by Marian De Souza, 51–67. New York: Springer, 2009.

–––. "The Nature and Functions of Religion and Spirituality in Childhood." In APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality: Vol. 1. Context, Theory, and Research, edited by Kenneth I. Pargament, 497–512. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2013.

–––. "Spiritual Development During Childhood and Adolescence." In The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality, edited by Lisa J. Miller, 151–164. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Boyatzis, Chris J. and Babette T. Newman. "How Shall We Study Children’s Spirituality." In Children’s Spirituality: Christian Perspectives, Research, and Application, edited by Donal Ratcliff, 166–181. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.

Boyatzis, Chris J., David C. Dollahite and Loren D. Marks. "The Family as a Context for Religious and Spiritual Development in Children and Youth." In The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., 297–309. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006.

Boyer, Pascal and Sheila Walker. "Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Input in the Acquisition of Religious Concepts." In Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, edited by Karl S. Rosengren, Carl N. Johnson, and Paul L. Harris, 130–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Boys, Mary C. “Engaged Pedagogy: Dialogue and Critical Reflection.” Teaching Theology and Religion 2, no. 2 (1999): 129–136.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. New York: Scribner, 1970.

Buchanan, Michael T. and Brendan Hyde. "Learning Beyond the Surface: Engaging the Cognitive, Affective and Spiritual Dimensions within the Curriculum." International Journal of Children's Spirituality 13, no. 4 (2008): 309–320.

Bumpass, Larry. Marriage, Work, and Family Life in Comparative Perspective: Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Hawaii, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2004.

Busch, Justin T. A., Rachel E. Watson-Johns, and Cristine H. Legare, “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations within and Across Domains and Development.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 35, no. 1 (2017): 4–20.

Buswell Jr, Robert E. and Timothy S. Lee, eds. Christianity in Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘I Press, 2006.

220

Clark, Charles Allen. The Korean Church and the Nevius Methods. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1930.

Calvin, John. Institutes, vol. 13, bk. 1, no. 1, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960.

Champagne, Elaine. "Being a Child, a Spiritual Child." International Journal of Children's Spirituality 8, no. 1 (2003): 43–53.

The Child Voice. The 5th and 6th Periodic Child Report of Republic of Korea to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Children Suffering from Academic Pressure. Seoul, Korea: The Child Voice, 2018.

Choe, Hong-kee. Hanʼguk kajok mit chʻinjok chedo ŭi ihae: Chŏntʻong kwa hyŏndae ŭi pyŏnhwa [Understanding Korean Family and Kinship System.] Seoul, Korea: Seoul National University Press, 2006.

Choi, Setbyol. Munhwasahŭihak ŭro barabon hanguk ŭi sedae yŏndaegi: sede gan munhwa gyŏnghŏm kwa munhwa galdŭng ŭi jahwasang [Generation Chronicle in Korea: Portrait of Cultural Experience and Cultural Conflicts Between Generations.] Seoul, Korea: Ehwa Women’s University Press, 2018.

Clark, Kelly J. and Justin L Barrett. "Reformed Epistemology and the Cognitive Science of Religion." Faith and Philosophy 27, no. 2 (2010): 174–189.

Csinos, David Michael. “An Exploration of Children and Culture in the United Church of Canada.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, Toronto, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Csinos, David M. and Ivy Beckwith. Children's Ministry in the Way of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Coles, Robert. The Spiritual Life of Children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.

Couture, Pamela D. Child Poverty: Love, Justice, and Social Responsibility. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2007.

–––. Seeing Children, Seeing God: A Practical Theology of Children and Poverty. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000.

De Mol, Jan et al. "Intergenerational Transmission in a Bidirectional Context." Psychologica Belgica 53, no. 3 (2013): 7–23.

DeVries, Dawn. “Toward a Theology of Childhood.” Interpretation 55, no. 2 (2001): 161–173.

Dewey, John. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D. C. Meath and Company, 1933.

221

–––. Experience and Education. New York: Free Press, 1997.

Eisner, Elliot. The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994.

Ellis, Stephen, and Gillian Granville. “Developing Theory into Practices: Researching Intergenerational Exchange.” Education and Ageing 14, no. 3 (1999): 231–248.

Florian Esser et. al. eds. Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies. London, England: Routledge, 2016.

Foster, Charles R. Educating Congregations: The Future of Christian Education. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994.

–––. "The Faith Community as a Guiding Image for Christian Education.” In Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education, edited by Jack Seymour and Donald Miller, 53–71. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1982.

–––. From Generation to Generation: The Adaptive Challenge of Mainline Protestant Education in Forming Faith. Eugene, OR: Cascade Book, 2012.

–––. "Intergenerational Religious Education." In Changing Patterns of Religious Education, edited by Marvin J. Taylor, 278-289. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984.

–––. “Religious Education in Forming Racially and Cultural Diverse Communities: How My Mind Has Changed.” Religious Education 113, no.2 (March 2018): 130–138.

–––. Teaching in the Community of Faith. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1982.

–––. “Why Don’t They Remember? Reflection on the Future of Congregational Education." In Forging a Better: Religious Education in the Third Millennium, edited by James Michael Lee, 89-112. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 2000.

Fowler, James W. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.

Freire, Paulo. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1973.

–––. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1970.

Giroux, Henry A. The Violence of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America’s Disimagination Machine. San Francisco, CA: City Light Books, 2014.

Glassford, Darwin. “Fostering an Intergenerational Culture.” In The Church of All Ages: Generations Worshiping Together, edited by Howard A. Vanderwell, 71–93. Herdon, VA: Alban Institute, 2007.

222

–––. "Learning to Love Together.” In Intergenerate, edited by Holly Catterton Allen. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2018.

Glassford, Darwin and Lynn Barger-Elliot. “Toward Intergenerational Ministry in a Post- Christian Era.” Christian Education Journal 8, no. 2 (Fall 2011): 364–378.

Goldman, Ronald. Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.

Groome, Thomas H. Christian Religious Education. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1980.

–––. “Children and Parents: Two-way Partners in Faith Development.” In Developing a Public Faith: New Directions in Practical Theology: Essays in Honor of James W. Fowler, edited by Richard R. Osmer and Friedrich L. Schweitzer, 203-212. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

–––. Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent. Allen, TX: Thomas More, 1998.

–––. "Handing on the Faith: The Need for Total Catechetical Education." In Handing on the Faith: The Church’s Mission and Challenge, edited by Robert P. Imbelli, 172–192. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2006.

–––. “Religious Education and Catechesis: No Divorce, for the Children’s Sake.” The Furrow 53, no. 11 (Nov 2002): 587–596.

–––. “A Shared Praxis Approach to Religious Education.” In International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Education, Part One, edited by Marian de Souza et al., 763–777. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2006.

–––. Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry. The Way of Shared Praxis. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1991.

–––. “Theology on Our Feet: A Revisionist Pedagogy for Healing the Gap between Academia and Ecclesia.” In Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology, edited by Lewis S. Mudge and James N. Poling, 55-78. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1987.

–––. "Total Catechetical Education." Journal of Christian Education & Information Technology 5 (Apr 2004): 7–24.

–––. “Total Catechesis/Religious Education: A Vision for Now and Always.” In Horizons & Hopes: The Future of Religious Education, edited by Thomas H. Groome and Harold Daly Horell. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003.

–––. “Total Catechetical education.” In Religious Education of Boys and Girls, edited by W. G. Jeanrond and L. S. Cahill, 79–87. London, UK: SCM Press, 2002.

223

–––. “Traces That Remain: From Life to Faith to Life.” Religious Education 113, no. 2 (March 2018): 147–155.

–––. Will There Be Faith?: A New Vision For Educating and Growing Disciples. New York, NY: Harper One, 2011.

Groome, Thomas H. and Harold Daly Horell ed. Horizons & Hopes: The Future of Religious Education. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003.

Hahm, In Hee. “Sede galdŭng ŭl nŏmŏ sede gongjon ŭl hyanghe” [Beyond Generational Conflicts toward Generational Coexistence.] Gyegan Sasang 44 (2000): 188-209.

Harkness, Allan G. “Intergenerational Education for an Intergenerational Church?” Religious Education 93, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 431–447.

–––. “Intergenerational and Homogeneous-Age Education: Mutually Exclusive Strategies for Faith Communities?” Religious Education 95, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 51–63.

–––. “Intergenerationality: Biblical and Theoretical Foundations.” Christian Education Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 121–134.

Harris, Maria. Fashion Me a People: Curriculum in the Church. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989.

Harris, Paul L. "On Not Falling Down to Earth: Children’s Metaphysical Questions." In Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, edited by Karl S Rosengren, Carl N. Johnson and Paul L. Harris, 157–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Hart, Dennis. From Tradition to Consumption: Construction of a Capitalist Culture in South Korea. Seoul, Korea: Jimmondang International, 2001.

Hay, David and Rebecca Nye. The Spirit of the Child. Rev. ed. London: Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006.

Hilborn, David and Matt Bird, eds. God and the Generations: Youth, Age and the Church Today. Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2012.

Hyde, Brendan. "Beyond Logic–Entering the Realm of Mystery: Hermeneutic Phenomenology as a Tool for Reflecting on Children’s Spirituality." International Journal of Children's Spirituality 10, no. 1 (2005): 31–44.

–––. Children and Spirituality: Searching for Meaning and Connectedness. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008.

–––. "Godly Play Nourishing Children's Spirituality: A Case Study." Religious Education 105, no. 5 (2010): 504–518.

224

–––. "The Identification of Four Characteristics of Children’s Spirituality in Australian Catholic Primary Schools." International Journal of Children's Spirituality 13, no. 2 (2008): 117– 127.

–––. “Lifeworld Existentials: Guides to Reflection on a Child’s Spirituality.” Journal of Religious Education 51, no. 3 (2003): 27–33.

–––. "Weaving the Threads of Meaning: A Characteristic of Children's Spirituality and Its Implications for Religious Education." British Journal of Religious Education 30, no. 3 (2008): 235–245.

Jang, Shin-Geun. “Gyohoe-kajŏng ŭi yŏngyesŭng ŭl jihyanghanŭn gansede gidokgyogyoyuk: adong ŭl jungshimŭro” [An Intergenerational Education for Church-Family in Solidarity: Focusing on the Children Age Group.] Shinhak Nondan [Theological Forum] 63 (2011): 217-243.

Jensen, David. Graced Vulnerability: A Theological of Childhood. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 2005.

Johnson, Carl N. and Chris J. Boyatzis. "Cognitive-Cultural Foundations of Spiritual Development." In The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., 211–224. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006.

King, Pamela Ebstyne and Chris J. Boyatzis. "Religious and Spiritual Development." In Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science. Vol. 3, Socioemotional Processes, edited by Richard M. Lerner and Michael E. Lamb, 1–48. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

Kelemen, Deborah. "Are Children “Intuitive Theists”? Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature." Psychological science 15, no. 5 (2004): 295–301.

Kim, Bu Tae. “Hanguk Hakryŏk-hakbul sahŏi gehyukron e dehan bunsukjuk gochal” [An Analytical Consideration on Arguments of Reforming Korean Hakryuk-hakbul Society]. The Jounral of Yeolin Education 22, no. 3 (2014): 1–26.

–––. “Hanguk hakryŏk hakbŏl yŏngu ŭi sajuk gochal:1980-2007” [A Historical Study on Academic Factionalism in Korea: 1980-2007.] Educational Sociology Studies 24, no. 1 (Jan 2014): 77-109.

Kim, Doil. “Yugyo kajokchuŭiŭi ijungsŏng:Pʻabŏl kwa kwŏnwijuŭiŭi yugachŏk kiwŏn” [The Duplicity of Confucian Familism: The Duet between Factionalism and Authoritarianism]. Chʻŏrhak [Philosophy] 135 (May 2018): 1–22.

Kim, Dong Hoon. “Hakbŏl chalbyŏl silte wa jungchek gwaje” [Discrimination Based on Academic Background: Current Status and Policy Issues.] Health and Welfare Policy Forum 95 (Sep 2004): 75–80.

225

Kim, Ju-Hyun. “Yŏnryŏngjuŭi gwanjom ŭl tonghan nonyŏn ŭi i'he” [The Change in the Status of Older People in Korea in Terms of Ageism], Sahŏi wa yŏksa 82 [Society and History] (2009): 361–391.

Kim, Sang-Bong. Hakbŏl Sahŏi: sahŏijŏk ju’chesŏng e de’han chŏlhakjŏk tam’gu [Academic Factionalism Society: A Philosophical Investigation on Social Subjectivity.] Paju, Korea: Hanʼgilsa, 2004.

Kim, Young-Ji Kim et al., Hanguk a’dong chŏngson’yŏn in’gwŏn silte yŏn’gu VI [The Study on Rights of Korean Children and Youth VI]. Seoul, Korea: National Youth Policy Institute, 2016.

Kuczynski, Leon. “Beyond Bidirectionality: Bilateral Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding Dynamics in Parent-Child Relations.” In Handbook of Dynamics in Parent-Child Relationship, edited by Leon Kuczynski, 1–24. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.

Larkin, Elizabeth, ed. Intergenerational Relationships: Conversations on Practice and Research across Cultures. New York: Haworth Press, 2004.

Legare, Christine H. et al. “The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations across Cultures and Development.” Child Development 83, no. 3 (May/June 2012): 779–793.

Lee, Kwang-kyu. Hanguk gajok gwa chinjok [Korean Family and Kinship.] Seoul, Korea: Jimmoonang Publishing, 1997.

Lee, Won Gue. Hanguk sa'hŏi munje wa gyohŏi gongdongche [Social Problems of Korea and the Church Community.] Seoul, Korea: The Christian Literature Society of Korea, 2002.

Lee, Ye-Ja. “Gansede gyoyuk” [Intergenerational Education]. Gyoyuk gyohŏi [Educating Church] 84 (1982): 298–304.

Levine, Shellie. "Children's Cognition as the Foundation of Spirituality." International Journal of Children's Spirituality 4, no. 2 (1999): 121–140.

Loder, James E. The Logic of the Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Mannheim, Karl. “The Problem of Generations.” In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge: Collected Works of Karl Mannheim, edited by Paul Kecskemeti, 276–320. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1952.

Martineau, Mariette. “Expanding Horizons Intergenerational Learning.” Lifelong Faith 2, no. 4 (Winter 2008): 49–50.

–––. “Faith Formation across the Generations.” Lifelong Faith 1, no.1 (Spring 2007): 53–59.

226

Martineau, Mariette, Joan Weber, and Leif Kehrwald. Intergenerational Faith Formation: All Ages Learning Together. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2008.

Mattis, Jacqueline S. et al, “Ethnicity, Culture, and Spiritual Development.” In The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., 283–296. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.

May, Scottie et al. Children Matter: Celebrating Their Place in the Church, Family, and Community. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.

Meadows, Sara. The Child as Thinker: The Development and Acquisition of Cognition in Childhood, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006.

Mercer, Joyce Ann. Welcoming Children: A Practical Theology of Childhood. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005.

Mezirow, Jack. "How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning." In Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, edited by Jack Mezirow, 1–6. San Francisco, CA: Jossy- Bass, 1990.

Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. Let the Children Come: Reimagining Childhood from a Christian Perspective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

–––. “‘Let the Children Come’ Revisited: Contemporary Feminist Theologians on Children.” In The Child in Christian Thought, edit by Marcia J. Bunge, 446–473. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.

Miller, Keith Graber. “Complex Innocence, Obligatory Nurturance, and Parental Vigilance: ‘The Child’ in the Work of Menno Simons.” In The Child in Christian Thought, edited by Marcia J. Bunge, 194–226. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Statistics of Religion in Korea in 2018. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, 2019.

Montessori, Mari. The Secret of Childhood. Translated and edited by Barbara Barclay Carter. London: Longman, 1936.

–––. The Montessori Method. New York: Schocken Books, 1964.

Moore, Mary Elizabeth Mullino. Teaching as a Sacramental Act. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004.

Mountstephen, Phillip and Kelly Martin. Body Beautiful? Recapturing a Vision for All-Age Church. Cambridge, UK: Grove Books, 2004.

227

Nelson, C. Ellis. “Formation and Transformation.” In Growth in Grace and Knowledge: Lectures and Speeches on Practical Theology 1949–1992, 236–252. Austin, TX: Nortex Press, 1992.

–––. Growing Up Christian: A Congregational Strategy for Nurturing Disciples. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008.

–––. Helping Teenagers Grow Morally: A Guide for Adults. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.

–––. How Faith Matures. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989.

–––. Where Faith Begins. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1967.

Nye, Rebecca. Children's Spirituality: What It Is and Why It Matters Sure Foundations. London: Church House Publishing, 2009.

Oh, Kyoo Hoon. “Hanguk gyohŏi ŭi kwonwŭijuŭi munhwa e gwanhan mokhŏisangdamjuk gochal: byŏnhwa wa hŏisim ŭi simrijuk yŏkdong” [Study on the Authoritarian Culture of the Korean Churches: Transformation of the Self and the Psychological Dynamics of Conversion]. Journal of Pastoral Care and Counseling 17 (November 2011): 41–94.

O'Hare, Padraic, ed. Tradition and Transformation in Religious Education. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1979.

Oser, Fritz K. and Paul Gmünder, Religious Judgement: A Developmental Approach. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1991.

Oser, Fritz K., W George Scarlett and Anton Bucher. "Religious and Spiritual Development Throughout the Life Span." In Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol.1. Theoretical Models of Human Development, edited by Williams Damon and Richard M. Lerner, 942–998. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.

Osmer, Richard Robert. Practical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.

–––. The Teaching Ministry of Congregations. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Osmer, Richard Robert and Friedrich Schweitzer. Religious Education between Modernization and Globalization: New Perspectives on the United States and Germany. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.

Park, Gil Sung. Hanguk ŭi sede munje: cha'i wa galdŭng ŭl nŏmŏsŏ [Society Makes Conflicts and Conflicts Make Society.] Seoul, Korea: Korea University Press, 2013.

228

Park, Gil Sung, Hahm In Hee, and Jo Dae Yup. Hanguk hyŏnde'in ŭi sede gyŏng'hŏm gwa munhwa [Generational Experience and Culture of Korean in Modernity.] Seoul, Korea: Jipmoondang, 2005.

Park, Hwa-Kyung. “Sede gan gyŏryu gyo'yuk ŭi jung'yosung gwa gyo'yuk model e gwanhan yŏngu” [The Study on the Importance and the Model of Intergenerational Education.]. Christian Education & Information Technology 26 (Aug 2010): 261–289.

Park, Jae-Heung. Hanguk ŭi sede munje: chai wa galdŭng ŭl nŏmŏsŏ [The Problem of Generation in Korea: Beyond Differences and Conflicts]. Gyeonggi-do, Korea: Nanam Publishing, 2005.

–––. Sede cha'i wa galdung i'ron ŭi hyŏnsil [Reality of Generational Difference and Theory of Conflict.] Daegu, Korea: Gyeongsang University Press, 2017.

Park, Sang-Jin. “Hanguk gidokgyo gyoyuk ŭi jindan kwa kwaje “ [Analysis and Tasks of Christian Education in Korea], Gidokgyo gyoyuk nonchong 24 [Journal of Christian Education in Korea] (June 2010): 21-60.

–––. “Jŏchulsan, goryŏnghwa side ŭi gyohŏi gyoyuk [Church Education in the Era of Low Birth Rates and Aging] Gidokgyo gyoyuk nonchong 40 [Journal of Christian Education] (Dec 2014): 77-109.

Park, Woo Young. “Da'ŭm sede chongsonyŏn ŭl seryopge i'hehagi: hanguk gyohŏi gongdongche ne ŭi sede'gan galdŭng ŭi ŭimi wa yul'lijŏk ganŭngsŏng” [A New Understanding of Youth Members in Korean Churches through Generation Conflicts as Creative Ethical Possibilities.] The Korean Journal of Christian Social Ethics, 24 (Dec 2012): 151-183.

Peck-McClain, Emily A. “In Christ Together: Intergenerational Ministry and 1 Corinthians 12.” In Practicing with Paul: Reflections on Paul and the Practices of Ministry in Honor of Susan G. Eastman, edited by Presian R. Burroughs, 138–156. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018.

Piaget, Jean. The Construction of Reality in the Child. Translated by Margaret Cook. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1954.

–––. Judgement and Reasoning in the Child. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1928.

Pineda, Ana Maria. “Hospitality.” In Practicing Our Faith: A Way of Life for a Searching People, edited by Dorothy C. Bass, 29–42. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2019.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea. “Presbyterian Church of Korea Statistics Report in 2015”. http://pck.or.kr/Pckinfo/Statistics.asp [accessed Aug 15, 2019].

The Presbyterian Church of Korea Education Department, Hananim ŭi nara: burusim kwa ŭngdap, gyoyuk kwajung iron jichimsŏ(I): iron [The Kingdom of God: Calling and

229

Response, Curriculum Theory Manual (I): Theory]. Seoul, Korea: Publishing House of the PCK, 2001.

Rizzuto, Anne-Maria. The Birth of the Living God. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Roberto, John. Becoming a Church of Lifelong Learners: The Generations of Faith Sourcebook. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2006.

–––. “Our Future is Intergenerational.” Christian Education Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 105– 120.

Roberto, John and Mariette Martineau. Generations of Faith Resource Manual: Lifelong Faith Formation for the Whole Parish Community. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2006.

Roehlkepartain, Eugene C., et al. eds. The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.

–––. "Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence: Moving to the Scientific Mainstream." In The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., 1–15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.

Roehlkepartain, Eugune C., and Eboo Patel. “Congregations: Unexamined Crucibles for Spiritual Development.” In The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., 324–336. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.

Scarlett, W George. "Toward a Developmental Analysis of Religious and Spiritual Development." In The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Eugene C. Roehlkepartain et al., 21-33. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2006.

Schmidt-Hertha, Bernhard. “Different Concepts of Generation and Their Impact on Intergenerational Learning.” In Learning Across Generations in Europe. New York: Springer, 2014.

Seymour, Jack L. Mapping Christian Education: Approaches to Congregational Learning. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Seymour, Jack L., Margaret A. Crain and Joseph V. Crockett. Educating Christians: The Intersection of Meaning, Learning, and Vocation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Seymour, Jack L. and Donald E. Miller, eds. Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1982.

230

Shim, T. Yong-ja, Min-Sun Kim, and Judith N. Martin. Changing Korea (Critical Intercultural Communication Studies). New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2008.

Sohn, Wonyoung. "Ŏrini-chŏngsonyŏn gyohŏi ŭi hyŏngsŏng ŭl wihan gyohŏironjuk ŭimi ŭi tamgu" [A Study on Ecclesiological Meanings for Establishing Children-Youth Church], Korean Journal of Religious Education 44 (February 2014): 91-112.

Statistics Korea. “Life Tables 2017.” http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/1/2/7/index.board [accessed Aug 15, 2019]

Strauss, William and Neil Howe. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow, 1991.

Tsuya, Noriko O., Larry Bumpass, eds. Marriage, Work and Family Life in Comparative Perspective: Japan, South Korea and the United States. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’I Press, 2004.

Un, Joon Kwan. Silchŏnjuk gyohŏiron [Practical Ecclesiology]. Seoul, Korea: The Christian Literature Society of Korea, 1999.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding Observations on the Combined Fifth and Sixth Periodic of the Republic of Korea, CRC/C/KOR/CO/5-6, 2019, G.41.

Vanderwell, Howard, ed. The Church of All Ages: Generations Worshipping Together. Herndon, VA: Alban Institute, 2008.

VanderVen, Karen. "Intergenerational Theory: The Missing Element in Today's Intergenerational Programs." Child & Youth Services 20, no. 1-2 (1999): 33–47.

–––. “Intergenerational Theory in Society: Building on the Past, Questions for the Future.” In Intergenerational Relationships: Conversations on Practice and Research Across Cultures, edited by Elizabeth Larkin et al., 75–94. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2004.

Vygotsky, Lev S. Thought and Language. Translated by Alex Kozulin. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.

Weber, Shantelle and Stephen de Beer. "Doing Theology with Children in a South African Context: Children as Collaborators in Intergenerational Ministry." HTS Theological Studies 72, no. 1 (2016): 1–11.

Webster, R Scott. "An Existential Framework of Spirituality." International Journal of Children's Spirituality 9, no. 1 (2004): 7–19.

Wigger, J. Bradley. "Children's Theory of God's Mind: Theory-of-Mind Studies and Why They Matter to Religious Education." Religious Education 111, no. 3 (2016): 325–339.

231

Wigger, J. Bradley, Katrina Paxson and Lacey Ryan. "What Do Invisible Friends Know? Imaginary Companions, God, and Theory of Mind." International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 23, no. 1 (2013): 2–14.

Westerhoff, John H. Bringing Up Children in the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1980.

–––. "The Church’s Contemporary Challenge: Assisting Adults to Mature Spiritually with Their Children." In Nurturing Children’s Spirituality: Christian Perspectives and Best Practices, edited by Holly Catterton Allen, 355–365. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008.

–––. Living the Faith in Community: The Church That Makes a Difference. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1985.

–––. Will Our Children Have Faith? 3rd revised edition. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2012.

Westerhoff, John H. and Gwen K. Neville ed. Generation to Generation: Conversations on Religious Education and Culture. Philadelphia, PA: United Church Press, 1974.

Wellman, Henry M. “The Child’s Theory of Mind: The Development of Conceptions of Cognition.” In The Growth of Reflection in Children, edited by Steve R. Yussen, 169– 206. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1985.

–––. Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014.

White, James W. Intergenerational Religious Education: Models, Theory, and Prescription for Interage Life and Learning in the Faith Community. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1988.

Wimberly, Anne S. Soul Stories: African American Christian Education. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Woo, Seok-Hoon and Kwon-Il Park. Palsip palmanwon sede: julmang ŭi side e ssŭnŭn hŭimangŭi gyŏngjehak [88 Man Won Generation: Economics of Hope in the Age of Despair]. Seoul, Korea: Rediang Media, 2007.

Woolley, Jacqueline D. “The Development of Beliefs About Direct Mental-Physical Causality in Imagination, Magic, and Religion.” In Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children, edited by Karl S. Rosengren, Carl N. Johnson and Paul L. Harris, 99-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Wyness, Michael. Childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2015.

–––. “Children’s Participation and Intergenerational Dialogue: Brining Adults Back into the Analysis.” Childhood 20, no. 4 (2012): 429–442.

232

Youndong Church, Sajinuro bonun yŏndong gyohŏi 110nyŏn yŏksa: 1894-2004 [The 110-year History of Youndong Church (Viewed in Photographs): 1894-2004]. Seoul, Korea: Presbyterian Church of Korea Youndong Church, 2004.

Yust, Karen-Marie. Real Kids, Real Faith: Practices for Nurturing Children’s Spiritual Lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass, 2004.

2. The secondary literature

Achtemeier, Elizabeth. Minor Prophets I, New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Berryman, Jerome W. Children and the Theologians: Clearing the Way for Grace. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2009.

Bunge, Marcia J., ed., The Child in Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

–––. “Biblical and Theological Perspectives and Best Practices for Faith Formation.” In Understanding Children's Spirituality: Theology, Research, and Practice, edited by Marcia J Bunge, 3–25. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012.

–––. “Christian Understandings of Children.” In Children, Adults, and Shared Responsibilities: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Perspectives, edited by Marcia J. Bunge, 59–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Bunge, Marcia J., Terence E. Fretheim and Beverly Roberts Gaventa, eds. The Child in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

Chechowich, Faye E. “Intergenerational Ministry: A Review of Selected Publications Since 2001.” Christian Education Journal 9, no. 1 (March 2012): 182–193.

Chung, Woong-Seop. “Gansede gyoyuk ŭl wŭihan sinang gongdongche hyŏngsŏng” [Formation of the Faith Community through Intergenerational Education.] Godokgyo gyoyuk [Christian Education] 211 (Jun 1985): 41-46.

–––. “Sinang gongdongche ŭi gansede gyoyuk: sŏngsŏjuk gicho wa gyoyuk ironjuk gŭngŏ rŭl jungshimŭro” [Intergenerational Education in the Faith Community.] Hanshin Journal 9 (Nov 1992): 65-114.

Crispin, Gareth, “Intergenerational Communities and a Theology of Accommodation.” In InterGenerate: Transforming Churches through Intergenerational Ministry, edited by Holly Catterton Allen. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2018.

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20, World Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

233

Gottlieb, Eli. “Development of Religious Thinking,” Religious Education 101, no. 2 (2006): 242–260.

Gundry, Judith M. “Children in the Gospel of Mark, with Special Attention to Jesus’ Blessing of the Children (Mark 10:13-16) and the Purpose of Mark.” In The Child in the Bible, edited by Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa, 143–176. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

Gundry-Volf, Judith M. “The Least and the Greatest: Children in the New Testament.” In The Child in Christian Thought, edited by Marcia J. Bunge, 29–60. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Huebsch, Bill. Whole Community Catechesis in Plain English. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2002.

–––. The General Directory for Catechesis in Plain English: A Summary and Commentary. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2003.

Keener, Craig S. 1-2 Corinthians. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Kelcourse, Felicity B. ed., Human Development and Faith: Life-cycle Stages of Body, Mind, and Soul. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2004.

Kim, In Soo. Hanguk gidok gyohŏi ŭi yŏksa [History of the Christian Church in Korea]. Seoul, Korea: Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary Press, 1997.

Ko, Yong Soo. “Dehan yesugyo jangrohŏi(tonghap) ŭi gidokgyo gyoyuksa.” [History of Christian Education in the Presbyterian Church of Korea] Gidokgyo gyoyuk nonchong 5 [Journal of Christian Education in Korea] (1999): 95-118.

Kuecker, Aaron. The Spirit and the “Other”: Social Identity, Ethnicity, and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Kurian, George Thomas, and Mark A. Lamport, eds. Encyclopedia of Christian Education. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Lerner, Richard M. Concepts and Theories of Human Development. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.

Livingston, James C. and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Modern Christian Thought. Vol. II, The Twentieth Century. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.

Matera, Frank J. Romans, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

234

Nelson, James M. Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. New York, NY: Springer, 2009.

Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Pub., 2011.

Nye, Rebecca, Sara Savage, and Fraser Watts. Psychology for Christian ministry. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Pitkin, Barbara. “‘The Heritage of the Lord’: Children in the Theology of John Calvin.” In The Child in Christian Thought, edited by Marcia J. Bunge, 160–193. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.

Poling, James Newton, and Heesun Kim. Korean Resources for Pastoral Theology: Dance of Han, Jeong, and Slalim. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2012.

Sawyer, John F. A. Prophecy and the Biblical Prophets. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Seymour, Jack L. Teaching the Way of Jesus: Educating Christians for Faithful Living. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2014.

Stortz, Martha Ellen. “Where or When Was Your Servant Innocent? Augustine on Childhood.” In The Child in Christian Thought, edited by Marcia Bunge, 84–102. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.

Talbert, Charles H. Ephesians and Colossians, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 2007.

Thielman, Frank. Ephesians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Weber, Hans-Ruedi. Jesus and the Children: Biblical Resources for Study and Preaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1979.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Translated by Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow. Edited by S. Dean McBride, Jr. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977.

Yang, Kum Hee. Chŏng'gyo gekyuk kwa gidŏkgyo gyoyuk [Reformation and Christian Education]. Seoul, Korea: Publishing House The Presbyterian Church of Korea, 1999.