Sunday, 8th January 2011, 09:06 hrs
In theological education, we talk about 'spiritual formation' through non-classroom activities such as chapel, vespers, prayer meetings and such like. The 'classroom' learning usually refers more to 'academic' training. In order to raise the level of spirituality of seminarians many seminaries resort to what I might call 'repressive' recourse, i.e. compulsory attendance at chapel services, prayer meetings, etc.
Last week our chaplain further announced that those who failed to attend any of such activities without seeking prior official permission would face the disciplinary action of having a 'minor offence' recorded.
Sometime last year during one of our faculty meetings I raised the question as to what our attendances of all these activities would be like if we abolished the requirement, that is, if we made it non-compulsory. Our dean's response was a little reflective, 'Oh yes...it's something we won't know...'; but our registrar's response was a disappointing, 'Then nobody would come'. My immediate response was, 'That's our attitude! We have a negative attitude towards our students and assume that they won't turn up. Our imposition of such a requirement is driven by something negative'. No one had an inkling of what I was talking about.
Last week, the registrar was sitting next to me when the announcement was made. We spoke a little and she said the dean was reserved about imposing a 'minor offence' penalty, which she thought the dean was absurd. But I told her that I didn't believe in making such things compulsory. For the way to get people to attend such activities should not be through 'punishment'. Some of our faculty members are ultra-fundamentalists who, if they were of other faiths, could have turned into terrorists! If we talk about 'spiritual formation', how then can we contradict this concept of 'formation' by 'compulsion' and the 'compulsion' by 'repression' through 'threat of punishment'? Further, by imposing such a requirement of compulsory attendance with the threat of punishment, we abdicate our responsibilities of helping our students 'form' spiritually, and this takes place on several levels. Let me elaborate.
First, we abdicate the responsibility of patiently and painstakingly reaching out to students who for reasons we may not know or understand fail to attend such activities. By reaching out to students, we will have to expend out time and energy, which perhaps is something we're not quite prepared to do. Instead of being 'counsellor's to students', we end up alienating them. Second, we abdicate the responsibility of carefully planning our activities and seriously supervise and direct every activity. By so doing, we actually create a bad habit of allowing everyone to do the same: haphazard planning is alright, since everyone will turn up for the event! Third, there is a lack of corporate mutual responsibility of 'care of the soul', in imposing such a requirement. For students who cannot be present will now have to make an application and the whole 'forming' process becomes legalised and mechanical. There is proportionally 'lesser' care for their reason/s behind their absence. There are more reasons I can think of; but the above are sufficient to illustrate my point.
I find it difficult to continue in such an environment where non-thinking persons are appointed to important positions who are always looking for ways to hit out at students, all under the pretext of 'spiritual formation'. This is fundamentalism - people who are sick in the mind!
