by: Roberto Sonio
Burgess�s own experience in the field of Religious Education prompted him to write this book. A dramatic turning point occurred when a number of students dropped his course and one of them told him bluntly that his class was boring. Instead of entertaining discouragement he was motivated to understand the dynamics of teaching and wrote this book.
This book makes a great contribution in Religious Education, for it not only identifies six key points for evaluating religious education but also applies those categories to a series of changing models throughout history and in the contemporary perspective. The first chapter addresses the relationship between theory and practice. Burgess argues that the aim of a teacher for his students, especially in Christian education, is to learn. But in response I must ask the practical questions what constitutes learning and how can we determine that the students are learning? So for example, is �head knowledge� enough? Is learning simply the accumulation of information in one�s mind? I believe that learning involves three aspects: gaining theoretical knowledge, engaging the emotions, and making practical application. In other words, learning is reaching the head, heart and hands of the learners. So then, theory followed by practice is critical to any effective model of religious education.
According to Burgess, �models have been employed first, as keys to understand the past and second, as bridges leading to the future� (p.22). In this regard, the author describes clearly the educational contribution from the Old and New Testaments to the present. In the Old Testament the giving of the Law and part of the Law is the responsibility of the parents as teacher to teach their own children about the mighty deeds of God. During the New Testament period Jesus was the great teacher, the ideal model. The apostles and later the early church fathers likewise patterned their teaching after Jesus.
In the third century, the goal for the catechumenate under the Prototype of Religious Education was to prepare morally and spiritually for membership and life in the church. �The period of preparation for the catechumen to become a full communicant member was about three years� (pp.35-36). This process is great because it assures that every member of the church is biblically sound, that their lives are truly transformed, and that they are willing to participate in the ministry of the body of Christ. Some churches today are quite lax in training new members. Consequently, this not only creates more troubles now, but also affects the growth and future of the church. I would consider this as one of the failures in leadership in our educational ministry.
After the Prototype of Religious Education, Burgess deals with the Classical Liberal Model of Religious Education in chapter 3. This model arises in the first half of the twentieth century. It was �characterized by the position that theological constructs are open to continual change�� and �the conviction that religious education is essentially concerned with the social and cultural reconstruction, not with individual salvation� (p.80). It is true that we need to be concerned with social and cultural reconstruction, but not to the extent that we lose the concern for individual salvation. The reason why believers are still here in the earth is that we need to bring that individual to the Lord. The liberal model wants to adjust the practice of the world to the practice of Christianity. For that reason, proponents argue that theological constructs are open to change. Such a view is not good. What is needed, rather, is to set a good example by not compromising by accepting the wrong doing of the world and allowing that to determine the theology.
The last three models are: (1) the mid-century model�a period of transition from worldly model to the dynamic teaching of theology, (2) the evangelical/kerygmatic model�the renewal of the prototype model, and (3) the social-science model�it is �rooted in the teaching-learning process� (p.26). These models were developed in order to improve more the learning process of each individual, so that we may grow in the knowledge of God. Each model has its unique contribution to our present model for religious education. So the decision is ours depending on what model of religious education is most suitable for our ministry context.
-- rsonio '05
