God has crafted humans to learn and mature in various ways. In Part 1 of this two-part article, we ended with this big question:

Since God (theology) has crafted humans (anthropology) intentionally and intricately, how should a robust “theological anthropology” affect our theory and practice of cross-cultural theological education?

Part 1 explored the foundation: God has artfully and intricately weaved together humans, and this means something for how we should contemplate human education. Part 2 now explores the “how.”

Honoring God by Learning with Our “Parts”

Very few people and communities doubt that learning should affect the “head”—the mind, the intellect. Many people and communities also admit, even if just in theory, that learning should not stop in the head.

Perhaps you have heard about learning that engages “head, heart, and hands.” It’s catchy. It’s helpful. It’s also not complete. I’ll end up giving you five, not three (so keep that in mind), but this tri-partite structure of learning is a helpful launch pad:

• Head—How is our cognition (thinking, reasoning) shaped by theological training?
• Heart—How are our affections (emotions, values) stimulated by the truths we learn?
• Hands—How can we grow more competent in behavior (skills, practice) with what we learn in theological education?

In broader education, many people and institutions use what is commonly referred to as Bloom’s taxonomies of learning domains: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. With the order rearranged for heuristic reasons, some education specialists talk about the ABCs of fuller learning: Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive. Here is a glimpse of each.

In the cognitive domain of learning (head), our mental abilities are meant to mature through numerous stages from simple to complex. (For God has designed us so.) For example, our thinking is meant to mature from simply memorizing and repeating what we have heard or read, to describing it in our own terms (which is a bit more difficult), to analyzing its positives and negatives (still harder), to evaluating it in light of competing ideas (ditto), to synthesizing or even creating our own hybrid solutions and even new ideas (very complex).

In the affective domain of learning (heart), our emotional and valuing capabilities are also meant to mature through numerous stages from simple to complex. (For God has designed us so.) For example, we mature affectively from responding emotionally to something learned (relatively simple), to appreciating or valuing the learned thing (more difficult), to organizing that value in relation to other values (still harder), to being characterized by that value (very complex).

In the behavioral domain of learning (hands), our skills or practical competencies are also meant to mature through numerous stages from simple to complex. (For God has designed us so.) Here is a sample, our skills mature from watching what someone else does (fairly simple), to trying the new task with guided responses from the teacher (more difficult), to doing the new task alone with mechanical basic proficiency (still harder), to automatic competency and even to mastery (very complex).

“Bloom’s taxonomies of learning domains” are anthropological—having to do with how humans function. What do they have to do with theological anthropology for learning? Well, as I sprinkled in parenthetically above, God intentionally crafted each of these different types or domains of learning within us humans. He knit the neurons of the “head,” formed the pulses of the “heart,” and built the tendons of the “hands” each with a unique route to their particular types of maturity.

And that’s not all.

Honoring God by Learning with “Parts” Put Together

Consider the two dynamics in the apostle Paul’s metaphor of the Church as Christ’s body in 1 Corinthians 12: (1) each part has its own unique role (like we just explored with head, heart, and hands each having their own routes toward maturity); and (2) each part’s role includes integration with the other parts in unified movement.

Did you know that God’s intricate weaving process caused the following:

• our head (cognition, thinking) matures faster and with higher quality (1) when intentionally targeted and (2) when exercised in connection with affections (heart) and practice (hands);
• our heart (affections: emotions, values) matures faster and with higher quality (1) when intentionally targeted and (2) when exercised in connection with cognition (head) and practice (hands);
• our hands (practice, skills) mature faster and with higher quality (1) when intentionally targeted and (2) when exercised in connection with cognition (head) and affections (heart).

And there’s still more—I warned you!—if, that is, we are to take seriously a robust theological anthropology for education.

Honoring God by Learning with All Our “Parts”—Adding the Big Two

To learn deeply in a more fully human way, the way the divine Artist intended, it is still not quite enough for our heads, hearts, and hands to each be engaged and all be interconnected—as good a start as that is. Each individually and all together need to be set within relationships and toward reverence.

God did not build us to be solo, siloed learners, disconnected from other learners or from him. Learning is not just about me and my head. It is not about just me and my head, heart, and hands.

Relationships. We humans learn better, more fully, more deeply—cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally—when pursued within relationships with other learners. All aspects of learning are enhanced when done in relationships. I will use the word “body” for this dynamic, echoing Paul’s metaphor of Christ’s “body” being about relationships knit together and interdependent.

Reverence. The master Artisan also crafted our learning—in each of its parts, in their interdependence, within human relationships—with a desired telos, a deliberate aim, a designed goal: reverence. Worship, praise, devotion, lament, thanksgiving, etc.—all dedicatedly Godward from any and every angle and situation. If our manifold learning is not done with “eyes” uplifted, aiming toward and repetitively reaching reverence to God in all its richness, it is not fully human and it is not the deepest learning.

Honoring God by Learning with Full-Body Integration

We face something of a practical problem now. Relationships do not fit into the common “head, heart, hands” motif for learning. Reverence doesn’t either. Bloom et al. did not go into either anthropological realm.  That said, there are debates now about whether there is a “spiritual learning domain,” even among secular educationalists. The key insights generally revealed in those debates are captured within my five-fold anthropological scheme below.

I will describe a full-bodied theological anthropology of learning like this:

• Head — learning/maturing in cognition
• Heart — learning/maturing in affections
• Hands — learning/maturing in praxis
• Body — learning/maturing in relationship with other parts of Christ’s body
• Eyes — learning/maturing with eyes lifted in reverence

(If I were really clever, I might try to talk about the ABCDEs of learning. Perhaps affections, behavior, cognition, devotion, and ecclesiology? But, actually, ecclesiology is not quite what I mean by learning-communities and learning-relationships, though all this certainly applies to learning and maturing within the Church too! Perhaps affections, behavior, cognition, devotion, and ensemble. A bit clunky. So, for now, I’ll stick with the thoroughly anthropological categories of head, heart, hands, body, eyes.)

Toward a Theological Anthropology of Learning

Should we really…?

• Should we really unravel and truncate God’s intricate artistry of learning?
• Should we really divvy up the threads and material of God’s fearful and wonderful weaving?
• Should we really then put each back onto separate looms and try to re-weave each part in isolation from the others (and almost inevitably neglect some altogether)?

What happens without a theological anthropology that can cope with God’s fearfully and wonderfully woven wealth of human learning?

Well, to express it with monstrous morbidity, we may be perpetuating a model of education that functions more like if Dr. Frankenstein had dissected a person into different body parts and then shouted, “Live! Improve your heads’ thinking; now improve your hands’ skills; now improve your eyes’ fixedness and focus… It’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive!”

(Gross? Yes, exactly.)

True, unlike in the Frankenstein simile above, and due to God’s grace, people can and will still learn things when tearing apart what God’s knitted anthropology. Thanks be to God. Relatively speaking, though, such learning will be shallower and more stilted.

This world needs deep learning. Transformative learning. Robust maturing in cognition, affections, behaviors, relationships, and reverence. I suggest that what God has joined together in anthropology, let us not separate in cross-cultural theological education.