Redemptive Transformational Learning for Ministry and Theological Education,Part 1

Abstract

This article continues the conversation between theological education and Transformative Learning (TL) theory by proposing a Redemptive Transformational Learning paradigm. The author explores a biblical-theology of transformation across Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation, reviews the development of TL from Jack Mezirow to its contemporary formulation, and offers an appreciative critique of TL. This critique orients the path forward, toward a redemptive approach to the practice of TL in theological education and church-based educational ministries.

Keywords

Transformative learning theory Jack Mezirow redemptive transformation theological education educational ministry

Introduction

Background

In Transforming Theology, Les Ball (2012) observes that theological schools make repeated claims “to provide transformative, holistic and integrative learning experiences” (p. 5; emphasis original). He goes on to reflect: “On the other hand, church constituencies…are increasingly looking to theological [schools] to provide more than academic skills, with an increasing demand for genuine human ‘formation’ for their students who are undertaking ministerial training” (p. 5). Ball’s insights epitomize two of the most important discussions occurring about theological education over the last twenty years concerning the models and methods employed to equip students for ministry.¹ The discussion focused on models addresses the ultimate goals toward which theological education aims and coalesces around what is now called the “formational” model (Aleshire, 2018). The discussion focused on methods increasingly looks to Transformative Learning (TL) theory in adult education as the process by which students are most deeply formed in and for ministry (e.g., Ball, 2012; Emslie, 2016; Sorenson, 2007). While I have taken up the former topic elsewhere (Nelson, forthcoming b), in this article I will explore the burgeoning integration between seminary education and Redemptive Transformational Learning (RTL).²

Purpose and Overview

In this article my working assumption is that the theory of RTL aligns with how God created humans as transformational beings in his image, and thus RTL, from an educative perspective, describes how learners most deeply experience personal and ministerial formation toward the image of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 2:18). Thus, my purpose in writing this Part 1 article is to further the conversation between theological education and TL. While Christian scholars have done some biblical-theological work related to TL (Kang & Feldman, 2013; Park, 2017; Young, 2011), there exists a need for a more substantial treatment of a biblical view of transformation which supports TL, particularly one that anchors transformation in God’s story of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation. Furthermore, nearly all the studies in theological education using TL have appropriated the theory from research in adult education, stemming from the pioneering work of Jack Mezirow (e.g., Ball, 2012; Marmon 2013; Nichols & Dewerse 2010). While Mezirow’s work and the subsequent developments in TL remain important and helpful for theological educators, little appreciative critique of non-redemptive views of TL has been offered from an explicitly redemptive framework (e.g., Kang & Feldman, 2013).³

Toward this purpose I aim to accomplish three things in this article. First, I will suggest a biblical-theological foundation for transformation toward the image of Jesus Christ which can support the practice of RTL, including a proposal of a theological definition of RTL. With these biblical-theological moorings in place, I will, second, review the development of TL, originating from Jack Mezirow’s pioneering work in “perspective transformation” (Mezirow, 1978a, 1978b), through its contemporary formulation as a holistic, metatheory of learning (Hoggan, 2016a, 2016b). Finally, I will offer an appreciative critique of a non-redemptive formulation of TL, which opens the way for a robust redemptive version of TL (i.e., RTL).

A Biblical Theology of Transformation

In this section, I present a biblical theology of human transformation toward the image of Jesus Christ. A growing body of literature argues for a reading of Scripture that holds together the unifying story of the Bible centered in Jesus Christ, but appreciates how that story progressively unfolds over the four “chapters” of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation (e.g., Bartholomew & Goheen, 2014; Goldsworthy, 2002; N. Wright, 1992; C. Wright, 2010). I will take up this paradigm to explore what each “chapter” discloses about human transformation as I seek to provide a basis for RTL.

Within the first two chapters of the biblical story, I will note how the doctrines of the imago Dei (in Creation) and common grace (in response to the Fall) relate to transformation. Within Redemption, I will consider the four New Testament passages which use the verb “transform” (metamorphoō) and I will suggest that Jesus Christ is the paradigm and source of redemptive transformation—a transformation received both as a gift progressively wrought by the Holy Spirit and as a call to active participation in that transformation. After briefly considering transformation and New Creation, I will propose a theological definition for RTL.

Creation: Created for Transformation

In Creation (Gen. 1–2) God created humanity for transformation. This is the case in two senses. First, God created humanity in a state of innocent perfection which had as its goal mature perfection.⁴ Vos (1948), writing from the Reformed tradition, eloquently describes the situation.

Man [sic] had been created perfectly good in a moral sense. And yet there was a sense in which he could be raised to a still higher level of perfection. On the surface this seems to involve a contradiction. It will be removed by closely marking the aspect in regard to which the advance was contemplated. The advance was meant to be from unconfirmed to confirmed goodness and blessedness; to the confirmed state in which these possessions could no longer be lost, a state in which man could no longer sin, and hence could no longer become subject to the consequences of sin. (p. 22)

Though morally perfect and living in communion with God, God created humanity’s first parents with the goal that they might be transformed to a state of “confirmed blessedness” in his presence. The probation turned upon Adam and Eve’s trust in the Creator as expressed in their obedience to his only injunction: not to eat “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17). If they had trusted and passed the probationary test, then God would have granted them the privilege to eat of the “tree of life” (Gen. 2:9, 3:22; Vos 1948, p. 28), transcending “their original mortality and move to a higher dimension, life beyond the creation to eternal life and immortality” (Waltke, 2007, p. 228). While Adam and Eve failed, plunging humanity into sin, the goal of human transformation in a perfected, eternal blessedness and life in the presence of God still remains, but now this transformation awaits redeemed humanity in the New Creation.

Second, God created humanity not only for our own spiritual transformation, but also to serve as transformative agents, as an expression of our human vocation as image-bearers. While not exhausting what it means for humans to be made in God’s image, the imago Dei expresses itself in the cultural mandate (Crouch, 2008; Waltke, 2007) to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over” it (Gen. 1:28), “to work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15), and to have the power to name (Gen. 2:19). In other words, humanity’s posture toward all creation is like that of a vice-regent (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2014, pp. 35–39), and a gardener (Keller, 2012, pp. 54–63) in one. A vice-regent rules as a representative of the king, under the authority of the king and for the sake of the king’s honor. A gardener works the earth to rearrange it and draw out the hidden potentialities in the soil, in order to produce fruitfulness and beauty for human sustenance and enjoyment. Therefore, as the Creator God’s “vice-regent gardeners,” humanity extends God’s original creative work by transforming the world through culture making and disclosing the hidden orders of intelligibility through knowledge construction in order that God may be glorified. In summary, then, if God created humanity as transformational beings then all enduring human learning necessarily entails some kind of transformative dimension.

Fall: Permeated for Deformation (or Dys-formation)

However, humanity’s transformative potential becomes distorted with the entrance of sin. While God created humans for transformation, in the Fall (Gen. 3:1-22) humanity becomes permeated for deformation. The pervasiveness of sin upon the human condition is total (e.g., Gen. 6:5; 8:5; Ps. 51:5; Jer. 17:9; Mk. 7:21): “It holds sway over the whole person, over mind and will, heart and conscience, soul and body, over all one’s capacities and powers” (Bavinck, 2006, p. 119). Sin does not eradicate human transformative potential inherent in the imago Dei, but co-opts it for evil resulting in deformative potential and orients it toward dysformation, that is, toward a self-centered dysfunction away from God and his creational design. Therefore, apart from the redemptive grace of God (which I will explore in the next section), all human learning, as transformative as it may be, contains within it the seeds of self-destructive deformation. Furthermore, human learning may additionally contribute to outright acts of destruction against God, other humans, and God’s world.

Yet, all is not lost for humanity. Sin may have distorted human transformation, but this deformation does not make humans out to be as evil as they can possibly be. People still retain their humanity in the image of God and God’s common grace mitigates many of sin’s most deleterious effects. Murray (1977) defines common grace as “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God” (p. 96). Aspects of this common grace include God’s restraining of sin, granting temporal blessings, enabling unbelievers to do good and promote the common good, and allowing unbelievers to know truth (Frame, 2013; Ps. 136:25; 145:9; Matt. 5:45; Lk. 6:33; Rom. 1:21; 13:3-4; 1 Thess. 2:7; 2 Pet. 2:14). Therefore, short of salvation both believers and unbelievers alike can experience substantial human transformation resulting in deeper levels of personal integration and the promotion of the common good.

Redemption: Redeemed for Transformation

While God’s common grace upholds some positive transformative potential across all sin-permeated humanity, in Redemption the Lord begins and progressively transforms his people through the work of the Holy Spirit unto conformity to Jesus Christ (e.g., Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:16-17; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:10-11). This biblical “chapter” of Redemption can be divided into two “scenes”: “Redemption Initiated” in the Old Testament and “Redemption Accomplished” in the New Testament (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2014). For the purposes of this article, I will not consider what the Old Testament discloses about redemption, but instead focus my attention on how Jesus Christ accomplishes our transformation in the New Testament. In what follows, I contend that in his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus Christ not only secures his people’s transformation, but embodies what all those united to him by faith will become: fully restored image-bearers according to God’s original creational intent. This transformational reality is both a gracious gift progressively wrought by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:16-17) and a call for active participation by God’s people in this redemptive process (Rom. 12:2).

In Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, he not only accomplishes salvation from sin and death and reconciles his people to the Father but inaugurates our transformation by becoming the first and paradigmatic Transformed One for his people. This can be seen by considering three of the four passages in the New Testament that use the verb metamorphoō, “to transform.” In Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus’ transfiguration, they use the word metamorphoō (commonly translated in those accounts as “transfigured”) to describe the change that comes upon Jesus. His transfiguration not only reveals his preincarnate glory as God, but previews his transformed eschatological glory as the God-man to whom his people are connected (Kang & Feldman, 2013; Bruner, 2004). Thus, Paul can declare that when Jesus returns, he “will transform [metaschēmatisei] our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Phil. 3:21). Therefore, “Jesus’ transfiguration was not simply an expression of the divinity of Christ, but an active expression of and invitation to the transforming work that God intends for the lives of his people. When Peter saw the transfigured Christ, he saw the quintessential image of God, and accordingly, the quintessential image of a human life transformed by God” (Kang & Feldman, 2013, p. 368). Interestingly, at the conclusion of the transfiguration event, Jesus commands Peter, James, and John to “tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead” (Matt. 17:9). This clue to the centrality of the resurrection moves us to consider the relation between Jesus’ resurrection and our transformation and the third use of the verb metamorphoō.

In Richard Gaffin’s work, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (1987, pp. 114–127), he argues that Jesus’ resurrection was his redemption (Rom. 6:10; 1 Tim. 3:15), in which Jesus became the paradigm and source of redemption to all those united to him.⁵ Relying on Gaffin’s explication, I contend that Jesus’ resurrection was not only his redemption but also his transformation. In his resurrection, Jesus was transformed from death to life. Thus, in his resurrection, Jesus becomes the paradigmatic Transformed One as the God-man so that all those who are united to him through the Holy Spirit will themselves experience transformation unto his image (Rom. 8:29).⁶ Paul makes it clear that the Holy Spirit effects this transformation into conformity to the image of Jesus Christ: “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord [Jesus],⁷ are being transformed [metamorphoumetha] into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). As Barnett (1997) observes, this transformation is progressive and means the “transformation of the inner or real being. Hence [it] carries the idea of the transformation of the essential person” (p. 207).⁸ Thus, in Redemption, God reveals that the restoration of the image of God in humanity is actually full conformity to the image of Jesus Christ, the God-man.

While the Holy Spirit effects and progressively works this transformation within God’s people, God also calls redeemed humans to actively participate in their own transformation as a response to this gracious gift. In the fourth occurrence of metamorphoō in the New Testament, Paul exhorts: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this age, but be transformed [metamorphousthe] by the renewal of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom. 12:1-2). In response to God’s grace in Christ through the Spirit (Rom. 1–11), Christians offer their entire selves (Moo, 1996, p. 750), their whole lives, in worship. In 12.2, they accomplish this by negatively resisting the pressure of the current evil “age,” of which they used to be irresistibly subject, and positively submit themselves to the transformation already being accomplished in them by the renewal of their minds, a renewal already theirs in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Those in Christ no longer have a “debased mind” (Rom. 1:28), but instead have been “renewed” by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5), possess the “newness of the Spirit” (Rom. 7:6; see also 6:4), and “have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16). Paul’s use of the word “mind” (nous) connotes “the inner direction of their thought and will and the orientation of their moral consciousness” (Behm, 1967, p. 958). Thus, Christians experience redemptive transformation as they progressively reframe their inner thoughts and moral inclinations in accordance with the gracious gift of the “new age” in Christ and through the Spirit in which they already participate.

New Creation: Perfected for Transformation

The transformative work already begun in the epoch of Redemption finds its consummation in the final “chapter” of the biblical story: New Creation. While “the already” of New Creation began in Jesus’ resurrection (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2014; N. Wright, 2003), the “not yet” awaits the return of Jesus Christ and God’s “making all things new” (Rev. 21:5; see also Matt. 19:28). As Revelation 21–22 depict (see also Isa. 65:17-25), this will involve “God’s plan to re-create and make all things new[—]to transform…what was once affected by sin and death [and] to bring new life, a new community, and ultimately a new cosmos” (Chang, 2014, p. 117; emphasis original). This New Creation will result in the perfecting of God’s original intentions for the creation and humanity (Wolters, 2005). Whereas the first Adam failed to achieve the “still higher level of perfection” in “confirmed goodness and blessedness” (Vos, 1948, p. 22) by eating of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 3), the second Adam, Jesus Christ, achieved this perfection for all his redeemed people, transforming them into his image (1 Cor. 15:45-49), so that in the New Creation they will eternally eat of the “tree of life” (Rev. 22:2). Yet, even in their new-creational perfected state, redeemed humanity will still pursue transformation. The cultural mandate eternally applies. As God’s now perfected image-bearers (“vice-regent gardeners”) conformed exactly to the image of the God-man, Jesus Christ, humanity’s potential for cultural transformation and knowledge construction will be unleashed in all its God-glorifying grandeur!

Summary and Definition of Redemptive Transformational Learning (RTL)

I have presented a biblical theology of transformation which can support RTL as a theory. I suggested that God created humanity as transformational beings who must engage the world transformatively (Creation). Sin distorted this capacity resulting in human deformation and dysformative agendas (Fall). Yet, because God’s common grace mitigates the effects of sin, both believers and unbelievers alike experience meaningful human transformation resulting in deeper levels of personal integration and the promotion of the common good. In Redemption, Christ’s transformation in his resurrection guarantees that all those who belong to him will ultimately be conformed to his image and, through the Spirit, they are empowered to participate in their own redemptive transformation. Ultimately, in the New Creation, redeemed humanity’s transformative potential will be perfected and unleashed for the glory of God.

Based on this biblical account, I define redemptive transformation as any transformation activated by the Holy Spirit toward greater conformity to the Master Image, the God-man, Jesus Christ. Building upon Hoggan’s (2016a, 2016b) definition of TL,⁹ I further define redemptive transformational learning (RTL) as processes that give rise to enduring changes that conform to the image of Jesus Christ in the way redeemed people experience, conceptualize, and interact with God’s world. This definition clarifies that RTL is a learning process which occurs over time and through many iterations. This process is not linear but more like a spiral, whereby the Holy Spirit increasingly conforms redeemed people closer to the image of Jesus Christ. These processes give rise to enduring changes, that is, the changes which emerge from the learning process are not temporary but have a relative stability and prove to be sustainable moving forward in time. However, the enduring nature of the changes take into account the spiralized movement of progressive sanctification whereby the tension between deformation due to sin and transformation affected by the Holy Spirit remain until the New Creation, even as redeemed people experience greater conformity to the image of Jesus Christ as the telos of their lives. Moreover, RTL is a process which occurs for both a redeemed person and redeemed people. Transformation is both individual and corporate in this sense, with the Holy Spirit activating transformation sometimes individually and sometimes corporately or in some combination of the two. Finally, RTL gives rise to experiential, conceptual, and interactive changes with God’s world. God’s world, as the creation inhabited by God’s creatures made in his image, remains the ultimate context for all redemptive changes. These changes may be experiential—related to people’s lived experience, affective capacity, and core desires. They may be conceptual—related to knowledge construction and worldview assumptions. They may be interactive—related to embodied behaviors, habits, and actions. Or changes may be some combination of two or all three of these dimensions.

Review of Transformative Learning (TL) Theory

Because God created humans as transformative beings and because his common grace supports some of humanity’s transformative potential since the Fall, we can benefit from the TL literature produced, beginning with Mezirow’s pioneering work. In this section, I review the development of TL toward its contemporary metatheoretical definition.

Over the last forty years, TL theory has become the most expansive and researched theory in adult education in North America (Hoggan, 2016a; Taylor, 2008; Taylor & Snyder, 2012). TL research has also crossed many disciplinary boundaries (Taylor & Snyder, 2012), including into my area of interest: Christian education and ministry generally (Blevins, 2013; Chang, 2014; Eby, 2006; Gimple, 2018; Kang, 2012; 2013; Kang & Feldman, 2013; Marmon, 2013; McEwen, 2006; Park, 2017; Young, 2011, 2013) and theological education specifically (Bailey, 1996; Ball, 2012; Bayles, 2000; Cronshaw, 2014; Emslie, 2016; Fleischer, 2006; Harkness, 2017; Jones, 2010; Nichols & Dewerse, 2010; Sorenson, 2007; Weinski, 2006, 2008; Wickett, 2005). The focus of TL is not on “what we know or are able to do but [on] a dramatic shift in how we come to know and how we understand ourselves in relation to the broader world” (Dirkx, 2012, p. 116; see also Kegan, 2000). It involves a perspective transformation in which a permanent change occurs in a person’s beliefs, values, commitments, and conduct (Taylor, 2008). The theory has undergone major development and expansion since Merizow’s (1978a) seminal work.

Mezirow’s Perspective Transformation

For Mezirow, learning is fundamentally about making meaning of one’s experience, which is largely a rational process which includes critical reflection (Mezirow, 1978b, 1981, 1991). He named this process “perspective transformation” (Mezirow, 1978b). He defines TL as “the process by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action” (2012, p. 76). The process by which transformation occurs often follows ten steps (Mezirow, 2012) beginning with a “disorienting dilemma,” which challenges the learners’ preconceived views and assumptions about life and/or the world. In order for transformation to occur the learner moves through the steps including self-examination, critical assessments of one’s assumptions, exploring and planning new options, trying on new views which build confidence, and finally “a reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective” (Mezirow, 2012, p. 86). More recently, researchers have tended to simplify the number of Mezirow’s stages and suggest that the stages may not be so rigidly linear but more cyclical, even though the order makes good sense of many people’s learning experiences (Cranton, 2016).

Towards a Metatheoretical Definition of Transformative Learning

Building upon, responding to, and reacting against Mezirow’s seminal theory of perspective transformation, scholars began to theorize and conduct research which broadened the study of TL to include a “more general phenomenon of people changing in dramatic ways” (Hoggan, 2016b, p. 60). Reviews have tended to classify the main approaches which developed within TL into four categories (Dirkx, 1998; Hoggan, 2016b; Taylor, 1998): rational (or psychocritical) following Mezirow’s perspective transformation, extrarational (or psychoanalytic), social emancipatory, and developmental (or psychodevelopmental).

Even as the approaches to TL have proliferated and interest in TL has crossed over into many disciplines, there has been a repeated call and attempts toward a more holistic theory of TL (Cranton, 2016; Cranton & Roy, 2003; Cranton & Taylor, 2012; Taylor, 1998). If TL was marked by a fragmentation of the theory into various strands, there now appears movement toward integration across all these perspectives. Dirkx and Mezirow’s 2006 published dialogue (Dirkx, Mezirow, & Cranton, 2006) speaks to this integration in the theory as both educators show appreciation for the other’s work and seek complementarity between their perspectives. Subsequently, Cranton and Taylor (2012) promote this holistic and integrative perspective, so that now Cranton (2016, p. xii) defines TL as “the process that leads to a deep shift in perspective during which habits of mind become more open, more permeable, more discriminating, and better justified…The process can be rational (cognitive), extrarational (e.g., intuitive, spiritual, relational, emotional), and/or focused on social change and social justice.” Her reintegrative definition does justice to the various kinds of transformative learning a person can undergo depending upon their personalities, religious convictions, and social circumstances.

Going beyond Cranton and Taylor, Hoggan’s (2016a, 2016b) recent work brings the study of TL forward toward just such an integration. Based on a metanalytic review of 238 TL articles published from 2003–2014 in three leading adult education journals, Hoggan proposes a new typology of TL based on the types of transformative outcomes people experience. In doing so, he argues that TL should now be understood as an analytic metatheory.

A metatheory is an overarching paradigm relative to a particular phenomenon or range of phenomena…[A]nalytic metatheory seeks to provide categorizations of components that are common among all underlying theories…[and that] is independent of specific disciplinary perspectives…so that the diversity of perspectives can work together to inform an overall understanding of the phenomenon. (Hoggan, 2016b, p. 63)

Thus, he argues that moving forward, TL should be decoupled from Mezirow’s narrower but legitimate definition of “perspective transformation,” and rather be defined in such a way that encompasses the vast range of people’s transformative experiences. He proposes the following new definition: “Transformative learning refers to processes that result in significant and irreversible changes in the way a person experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts with the world” (Hoggan, 2016a, p. 77; 2016b, p. 71). He goes on to elaborate that “the descriptors ‘experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts’ reflect the range of ways the transformative outcomes described in this study affect a person. Metaphorically, these descriptors can be represented by the heart, head, and hands” (Hoggan, 2016b, p. 71).

I believe Hoggan’s new articulation of TL represents an integrative and holistic definition upon which the field can move forward.¹⁰ However, this articulation still remains non-redemptive. Therefore, in the next section, I will appreciatively critique the TL literature in order to demonstrate the ultimate need for a robust Christian, theological, and redemptive approach to transformation.

Critique of Transformative Learning (TL)

Published critiques of TL fall into two main categories: early critiques of Mezirow’s narrower “perspective transformation” and recent critiques (since 2010) aimed at the more holistic and integrated view of TL, as represented by Cranton and Taylor (2012) and Hoggan (2016a, 2016b). The early critiques of Mezirow focused on his failure to address the goal of social change, neglect of power issues, and select use of Habermas’ theory of communicative action which decoupled it from its critical roots (Collard & Law, 1989; Hart, 1990). Reviewers also criticized him for his disregard for the cultural context of learning (Clark & Wilson, 1991) and overemphasis on rational thought (Dirkx, 1997). As the theory of TL expanded, even proponents of the theory began to wonder if the word “transformation” had become so widely used as “to refer to any kind of change or process at all” (Kegan, 2000, p. 47) that it could become devoid of meaning and fall “victim to the twin dangers of evacuation and reification of meaning” (Brookfield, 2000, p. 140).

Picking up on these hints, the recent critiques, while still taking aim heavily at Mezirow, have sought to critically appraise the emerging holistic and integrated view of TL more broadly. The most important, recent critiques argue that TL does not exist as a different kind of learning and that the theory is not really a theory at all (Howie & Bagnall, 2013; Newman, 2012a; see also Newman, 2012b). Instead, these critics propose that there exists “just good learning” (Newman, 2012a, p. 37) and that transformation is only helpful as a “conceptual metaphor” (Howie & Bagnall, 2013). Additionally, a group of scholars (Naughton & Schied, 2010, 2012; Wilner & Dubouloz, 2010, 2011, 2012) have begun to challenge TL’s dominant assumption that transformative changes are inherently positive, moral, democratic, and altruistic, and have exposed the “dark side” (Naughton & Schied, 2010) of negative transformation.

I find these recent critiques helpful, not in that they successfully demonstrate that TL does not exist as a theory or practice, but they expose a more fundamental problem with TL which can be diagnosed and answered from a Christian, theological perspective. Apart from a biblical worldview, TL does not have an ontological and epistemological warrant, and remains teleologically untethered. The humanistic, evolutionary, and democratic-socialistic assumptions implicit in non-redemptive theories of TL do not have an ultimate justification and must be critically questioned. In contrast, a Christian ontology, epistemology, and teleology provide sufficient warrant to affirm an RTL theory.¹¹ However, even in critiquing TL, I do not wish to denigrate the good or the valuable contributions which it has offered to adult education over the last forty years. Consistent with my affirmation above in the section on the biblical theology of transformation, both the doctrines of the image of God in humanity and common grace combine to invest unbelieving TL theorists and practitioners with the ability to identify truth, contribute meaningfully, and facilitate positive change in learners’ lives. In fact, Christian education and theological education owe a debt of gratitude to the seminal TL scholars, as evidenced by the growing literature cited above in these fields.

While it seems self-evident that people change deeply in ways that appear or feel transformative, and while the massive literature in TL provide a robust social-science research base to suggest a theory and offer numerous practices which may foster students’ transformation, neither of these answer why the phenomenon of transformation may exist at all. Ontologically speaking, only a biblical-theological understanding of being will ultimately suffice. As I proposed earlier, the Christian God of the Bible created humanity as transformational beings who must engage the world transformatively. Thus, inherent in humanity as imago Dei exists transformative potential and the ability for all people to learn in deeply transformative ways.

Epistemologically, TL theory’s view of truth is problematic from a Christian perspective. Since in large part TL is concerned with how adults construct knowledge by making meaning of their experiences, it tends to rest upon a relativistic assumption about what is true. Mezirow (2012) states well this basic assumption shared by TL: “As there are no fixed truths or totally definitive knowledge, and because circumstances change, the human condition may be best understood as a continuous effort to negotiate meanings” (p. 73). Cranton and Taylor (2012) concur: “The actual process involved in construction of meaning may be different, but meaning is still constructed; it does not exist as an absolute truth outside of the self” (p. 8). Working from this assumption, how then does anyone who has undergone a transformative meaning-making experience know whether that transformation is actually true beyond the self, that it actually coheres or corresponds with a reality beyond the self? In contrast, the Christian worldview confesses that God is the source of all truth. He has revealed truth in general revelation through creation and has revealed redemptive truth through special revelation in the Bible and ultimately in Jesus Christ. These Christian convictions can provide warrant for determining what is true and comparing supposed transformative learning experiences against an objective standard.

When it comes to the goal of TL, the ultimate goal toward which transformation ought to aim, the various approaches provide different targets. From Mezirow’s perspective, the goal is that people’s “taken-for-granted frames of reference” will become “more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective” (Mezirow, 2012, p. 76). For Dirkx, the goal is to bring a deeper sense of self-knowing out of previously unknown relations within one’s self and in relation to others and the world (2012, p. 126). For the social emancipatory approach, the goal is to find freedom from oppressive ideologies to form a new democratic-socialism for the benefit of all (Brookfield, 2012, p. 138). But, as recent studies have pointed out, these goals ignore the “dark side” of TL (Naughton & Schied, 2010, 2012; Wilner & Dubouloz, 2012). Naughton and Schied (2012, p. 409) ask, “What are we to make of learning that is neither moral, nor good and yet transforms individuals and societies?” They recognize that TL theory is not “inherently holistic or altruistic” (p. 410), citing examples like the Rwandan genocide. This exposes the untethered teleology of TL. In contrast, as discussed previously, a Christian view of transformation acknowledges God’s creational telos for transformation. It diagnoses evil transformations as based in the Fall’s sinful distorting of transformative processes toward evil and destruction. Yet, most importantly, it provides the ultimate, redemptive telos toward which God is transforming his people: unto conformity to the Master-Image, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

In summary, I have suggested that a biblical-theological investigation of the theme of transformation across the four-part story of Scripture demonstrates that God created humanity as transformative beings and is redeeming humanity to enable humanity’s fullest transformative potential to engage the world. Such a theological vision supports the practice of RTL, which I define as processes that give rise to enduring changes that conform to the image of Jesus Christ in the way redeemed people experience, conceptualize, and interact with God’s world. Because humankind’s transformative image-bearing nature remains (though marred and misdirected) post-Fall and because of God’s common grace, developments in the theory and practice of TL in adult education can richly benefit seminary and other Christian educators in their teaching roles. However, as Christians we must critique TL for its lack of ontological and epistemological warrant and untethered teleology.

This critique opens up the path to explore an explicitly Christian theory of redemptive TL. In the forthcoming follow-up to this article, entitled “Redemptive Transformational Learning for Ministry and Theological Education, Part 2,” I will continue this discussion by exploring the corpus of the Christian educational philosopher, James Loder. There I will review his Christian meta-theology of redemptive transformation in hope to demonstrate the theological depth and the christocentric and pneumatological underpinnings of his meta-theology of redemptive transformation. I will then commend his theory for practical use in theological schools and in the teaching ministry of churches desiring “to provide transformative, holistic and integrative learning experiences” (Ball, 2012, p. 5), by offering a series of implications for the practice of educational ministry.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Donald Guthrie, Dr. James Moore, Ms. Stacy Lung, Dr. Daniel Yamashiro, and Rev. Wainaina Njuguna for their gracious and generative feedback on earlier versions of this article.

ORCID iD

Rev. Seth J. Nelson

Note on contributor

Rev. Seth J. Nelson is the Executive Director of Erskine Theological Seminary Greenville in Greenville, SC, and a Ph.D. candidate in Educational Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He also serves as the Scholar in Residence for the C.S. Lewis Institute, Greenville, SC. Previously he served as a local church pastor for ten years.

Notes

References

Aleshire

D. O.

(2018). The emerging model of formational theological education. Theological Education , 51(2), 25–37. Retrieved from https://www.ats.edu/uploads/resources/publications-presentations/theological-education/2018-theological-education-v51-n2.pdf

Bailey

L. D.

(1996). Meaningful learning and perspective transformation in adult theological students (Ed.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Ball

(2012). Transforming theology: Student experience and transformative learning in undergraduate theological education. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Barnett

(1997). The second epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Bartholomew

C. G.

Goheen

M. W.

(2014). The drama of scripture: Finding our place in the biblical story (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bauer

(2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature ( Danker

F. W.

, Ed.; 3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bavinck

(2004). Reformed dogmatics: God and creation (Vol. 2). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bavinck

(2006). Reformed dogmatics: Sin and salvation in Christ (Vol. 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bayles

B. R.

(2000). Perspective transformation in adult theological education (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

10.

Behm. (1967). Voūs. In Kittel

Bromiley

(Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 4, pp. 951–960) . Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

11.

Blevins

D. G.

(2013). Transformational teaching insights from neuroscience. Christian Education Journal , 10(2), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131301000211

12.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2000). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 125–148). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2012). Critical theory and transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 131–146). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Bruner

F. D.

(2004). Matthew: A commentary: The churchbook Matthew (Rev. ed. Vol. 2, pp. 13–29). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

15.

Chang

S. H.

(2014). New creation transformative Christian higher education within the context of socio-cultural globalization (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity International University.

16.

Clark

M. C.

Wilson

A. L.

(1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly , 41(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041002002

17.

Collard

Law

(1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly , 39(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039002004

18.

Cranton

(2016). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

19.

Cranton

Roy

(2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education , 1(2), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603001002002

20.

Cranton

Taylor

E. W.

(2012). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–20). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Cronshaw

(2014). Review of transforming theology: Student experience and transformative learning in undergraduate theological education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 632–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.865297

22.

Crouch

(2008). Culture making: Recovering our creative calling. Downers Grove, IL: IVP.

23.

Dirkx

J. M.

(1997). Nurturing soul in adult learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education , 74, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7409

24.

Dirkx

J. M.

(1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1–14.

25.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2012). Nurturing soul work: A Jungian approach to transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 116–130). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Dirkx

J. M.

Mezirow

Cranton

(2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344606287503

27.

Eby

K. L.

(2006). Perspective transformation: Process identification, phases and facilitators in Christian higher education in Russia (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

28.

Emslie

(2016). Transformative learning and ministry formation. Journal of Adult Theological Education , 13(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17407141.2016.1158497

29.

Fleischer

B. J.

(2006). Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning and Lonergan’s method in theology: Resources for adult theological education. Journal of Adult Theological Education , 3(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1558/jate.2006.3.2.147

30.

Frame

J. M.

(2013). Systematic theology: An introduction to Christian belief. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.

31.

Gaffin

R. B.

Jr. (1987). Resurrection and redemption: A study in Paul’s soteriology (2nd ed.). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.

32.

Gimple

R. K.

(2018). Integrating transformative learning theory with covenant epistemology: An exploration of the missiological implications (Ph.D. dissertation). Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

33.

Goldsworthy

(2002). According to plan: The unfolding revelation of God in the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

34.

Guthrie

G. H.

(2015). 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

35.

Harkness

(2017). The role of academic leadership in designing transformative teaching and learning. In Deininger

Eguizabal

(Eds.), Leadership in theological education, volume 2: Foundations for curriculum design (pp. 135–175). Carlisle, UK: Langham Global Library.

36.

Hart

(1990). Critical theory and beyond: Further perspectives on emancipatory education. Adult Education Quarterly , 40(3), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848190040003001

37.

Hoggan

C. D.

(2016a). A typology of transformation: Reviewing the transformative learning literature. Studies in the Education of Adults , 48(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2016.1155849

38.

Hoggan

C. D.

(2016b). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly , 66(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216

39.

Howie

Bagnall

(2013). A beautiful metaphor: Transformative learning theory. International Journal of Lifelong Education , 32(6), 816–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.817486

40.

Jones

L. C.

(2010). You must change your life: A narrative and theological inquiry into the experiences of transformative learning in clinical pastoral education students. (Ed.D. dissertation). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

41.

Kang

H. P.

(2012). Perception and experience of transformative learning and faculty authenticity among North American professors of Christian education (Ph.D. dissertation). La Mirada, CA: Biola University.

42.

Kang

H. P.

(2013). Perception and experience of transformative learning and faculty authenticity among North American professors of Christian education (NAPCE). Christian Education Journal , 10(2), 339–359. https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1177/073989131301000206

43.

Kang

S. S.

Feldman

(2013). Transformed by the transfiguration: Reflections on a biblical understanding of transformation and its implications for Christian education. Christian Education Journal, 10(2), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131301000208

44.

Kegan

(2000). What “form” transforms: A constructive-developmental approach to transformational learning. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35–70). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Keller

(2012). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God’s work. Boston, MA: Dutton.

46.

Marmon

E. L.

(2013). Transformative learning theory: Connections with Christian adult education. Christian Education Journal , 10(2), 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131301000212

47.

McEwen

R. M.

(2006). A critical analysis of transformative learning theory utilizing a social constructionist framework: Toward a theoretical model with implications (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

48.

Mezirow

. (1978a). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. New York: Teachers College.

49.

Mezirow

(1978b). Perspective transformation. Adult Education , 28(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171367802800202

50.

Mezirow

(1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education , 32(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101

51.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

52.

Mezirow

(2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 73–96). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

53.

Moo

D. J.

(1996). The epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

54.

Murray

. (1977). Common grace. In Collected writings of John Murray: Select lectures in systematic theology (Vol. 2, pp. 93–122). Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth.

55.

Naughton

Schied

(2010). Disturbing outcomes: The dark side of transformative learning. Adult Education Research Conference. Retrieved from http://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2010/papers/55

56.

Naughton

Schied

(2012). Darkness visible: A consideration of alternative directions and outcomes of transformative learning theory, teaching and practice. Adult Education Research Conference. Retrieved from https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2012/symposia/1

57.

Nelson

S. J.

(2020). Toward a missionally integrative, evangelical theological education. Evangelical Review of Theology, 44(1), 4–22. Retrieved from https://www.worldevangelicals.org/tc/pdf/ERT%20Vol%2044%20No%201%20January%202020.pdf

58.

Nelson

S. J

. (forthcoming a). Redemptive transformational learning for ministry and theological education, part 2. Manuscript submitted for publication in the Christian Education Journal .

59.

Nelson

S. J

. (forthcoming b). Whole-person seminarian formation in the United States. Manuscript submitted for publication.

60.

Newman

(2012a). Calling transformative learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts. Adult Education Quarterly , 62(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610392768

61.

Newman

(2012b). Michael Newman’s final comments in the forum on his article “Calling transformative learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts.” Adult Education Quarterly , 62(4), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713612456421

62.

Nichols

Dewerse

(2010). Evaluating transformative learning in theological education: A multi-faceted approach. Journal of Adult Theological Education , 7(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1558/jate.v7i1.44

63.

Park

R. S.

(2017). Intergenerational conflict that arises from intermarriage among Chinese-American Christian families: A Christian transformative learning experience (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

64.

Sorenson

C. A.

(2007). Formation, transformative learning, and theological education (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Auckland, Australia.

65.

Taylor

E. W.

(1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423422

66.

Taylor

E. W.

(2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education , 119, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301

67.

Taylor

E. W.

Snyder

M. J.

(2012). A critical review of research on transformative learning theory, 2006–2010. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 37–55). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

68.

Vos

. (1948). Biblical theology: Old and New Testaments (Reprint ed.). Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth.

69.

Waltke

B. K.

(2007). An Old Testament theology: An exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.

70.

Weinski

M.-C.

(2006). An inquiry into the transformative learning of evangelical theological students in Germany (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

71.

Weinski

M.-C.

(2008). Understanding and promoting life change among evangelical theological students in Germany. Common Ground Journal, 5(2), 107–119.

72.

Wickett

(2005). Adult learning theories and theological education. Journal of Adult Theological Education , 2(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1558/jate.2005.2.2.153

73.

Wilner

A. S.

Dubouloz

C.-J.

(2010). Homegrown terrorism and transformative learning: An interdisciplinary approach to understanding radicalization. Global Change, Peace & Security , 22(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150903487956

74.

Wilner

A. S.

Dubouloz

C.-J.

(2011). Transformative radicalization: Applying learning theory to Islamist radicalization. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , 34(5), 418–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2011.561472

75.

Wilner

A. S.

Dubouloz

C.-J.

(2012). Violent transformations: Can adult learning theory help explain radicalization, political violence, and terrorism? Adult Education Research Conference. Retrieved from https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2012/papers/53/

76.

Wolters

A. M.

(2005). Creation regained: Biblical basics for a reformational worldview (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

77.

Wright

C. J. H.

(2010). The mission of God’s people: A biblical theology of the church’s mission. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

78.

Wright

N. T.

(1992). The New Testament and the people of God. New York, NY: Fortress Press.

79.

Wright

N. T.

(2003). The resurrection of the Son of God. New York, NY: Fortress Press.

80.

Young

C. J.

(2011). Deep change: How the transformational learning theories of Mezirow and Loder apply to pastoral ministry (D.Min. Thesis). St. Louis, MO: Covenant Theological Seminary.

81.

Young

C. J.

(2013). Transformational learning in ministry. Christian Education Journal, 10(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131301000205