CFR
A number of us are openly sympathetic, but I think it's safe to say that pretty much anyone that has always just really liked Capstone class is closetted. Everyone's a critic and it's a new program, so all year, there's been a lot of negativity circulating. For those reading that don't know about Capstone class, it's basically a class on Christian worldview. As part of that curriculum, they've used the template "CFR" - Creation, Fall, Redemption - as a way of framing everyday topics and providing us opportunity for faith integration. Phrased in a way that's more sympathetic to my class's feelings about the matter, everything we've learned has been crammed into these restrictive little categories that seem inapplicable outside the elementary level. I was in that camp for awhile, but I've spent lots of time trying to understand the reason they're having us learn this stuff. The class is a beautiful vision in many ways: it was born from pure ideals and a lot of integrity. Because I've spent time learning to appreciate it, some of the stuff ended up sinking into my worldview in lovely ways, just like they wanted. That's when I sent Mr. Gephart an email. I've decided to repost for common benefit.
Mr Gephart -
I know there's been a lot of complaining from the students' side about how the CFR framework is restrictive and belittling, and I agree that in some ways it can be. But I also think that there are a lot of brilliant ways to use this very simple framework. It keeps coming up in conversations and arguments I have, and has actually been very helpful in helping me distil my own ideas on things. You've been very open about the whole process, so I thought I'd share a couple with you to help you brainstorm ideas of how you might adapt the curriculum next year.
1) CFR: The Existence of Diverse Interpretations of Scripture
Yesterday, Nick and I were running through some ideas around inspiration. He said, more or less, that he believed there's a reason God made scripture interpretable. I answer that I've heard very few people in my life ever say something like that – isn't there a single way Scripture must be interpreted? Is “diversity in interpretation” in the “C” or “F” category? He went on to give a more nuanced explanation that made “diversity in interpretation” neither something that God imposed on people – as separation and lack of unity wouldn't be in an original creation – nor something that we need to dismiss as a terrible consequence of sin. Instead, it's in the “R” category: something God uses to reach different people with distinct worldviews and life experiences. God has used contradicting theologies to bring believers to him; even if perhaps neither of two contradicting doctrines is Truth with a capital T, God can use both as instruments in connecting believers to him.
I was thinking that a worthwhile, intellectually-stimulating, and (in my opinion) fun assignment could be to spend a class period explaining this idea to people, and then have them write an essay on whether they think “The Existence of Diverse Interpretations of Scripture” falls under C, F, or R, and why.
2) CFR: Fall
Another time, it was actually the end of Capstone, during the week our IS Philosophy class was plugging through some readings on the Problem of Evil. (So this is a bit more theological and complicated; it would have to be part of a whole unit on the Problem of Evil. Capstone would be a great forum for people to try to unpack this hefty issue, but it does take some time. I mostly include this as a counter to the attack that the “CFR” template is irredeemably shallow.) I postulated that perhaps we could look to a CFR meta-level to think about how the existence of “F” is justified. By that, I mean that if God created the CFR framework, then there must be a CFR of “C,” a CFR of “F,” and a CFR of “R.” The Christian take on the Problem of Evil is effectively an analysis of the CFR of “F.”
C: Why would God create people he knew would choose pain and sin and death? Other than a lack of free will, how would his creation have been less if he had not allowed this?
F: How could we incorrectly handle the presence of sin and brokenness in our lives? In other words, given that there are paradoxically good things that come from having sin, death, and suffering in the world (compassion, empathy, community, medicine, catharsis, perseverance (Rom. 5)), what would it look like to incorrectly deal with our sin and thereby fail to access the blessing God could turn it into?
R: My hypothesis was that “R” for this particular framework would be the elimination of “C.” The process is twofold: Jesus first redeems us from sin through substitutionary atonement (eliminating sin in God's eyes), and then we respond by actively attempting to eliminate the “C” of sin in our lives.
Hope this helps in some way.
Marié Dippenaar
Mr Gephart -
I know there's been a lot of complaining from the students' side about how the CFR framework is restrictive and belittling, and I agree that in some ways it can be. But I also think that there are a lot of brilliant ways to use this very simple framework. It keeps coming up in conversations and arguments I have, and has actually been very helpful in helping me distil my own ideas on things. You've been very open about the whole process, so I thought I'd share a couple with you to help you brainstorm ideas of how you might adapt the curriculum next year.
1) CFR: The Existence of Diverse Interpretations of Scripture
Yesterday, Nick and I were running through some ideas around inspiration. He said, more or less, that he believed there's a reason God made scripture interpretable. I answer that I've heard very few people in my life ever say something like that – isn't there a single way Scripture must be interpreted? Is “diversity in interpretation” in the “C” or “F” category? He went on to give a more nuanced explanation that made “diversity in interpretation” neither something that God imposed on people – as separation and lack of unity wouldn't be in an original creation – nor something that we need to dismiss as a terrible consequence of sin. Instead, it's in the “R” category: something God uses to reach different people with distinct worldviews and life experiences. God has used contradicting theologies to bring believers to him; even if perhaps neither of two contradicting doctrines is Truth with a capital T, God can use both as instruments in connecting believers to him.
I was thinking that a worthwhile, intellectually-stimulating, and (in my opinion) fun assignment could be to spend a class period explaining this idea to people, and then have them write an essay on whether they think “The Existence of Diverse Interpretations of Scripture” falls under C, F, or R, and why.
2) CFR: Fall
Another time, it was actually the end of Capstone, during the week our IS Philosophy class was plugging through some readings on the Problem of Evil. (So this is a bit more theological and complicated; it would have to be part of a whole unit on the Problem of Evil. Capstone would be a great forum for people to try to unpack this hefty issue, but it does take some time. I mostly include this as a counter to the attack that the “CFR” template is irredeemably shallow.) I postulated that perhaps we could look to a CFR meta-level to think about how the existence of “F” is justified. By that, I mean that if God created the CFR framework, then there must be a CFR of “C,” a CFR of “F,” and a CFR of “R.” The Christian take on the Problem of Evil is effectively an analysis of the CFR of “F.”
C: Why would God create people he knew would choose pain and sin and death? Other than a lack of free will, how would his creation have been less if he had not allowed this?
F: How could we incorrectly handle the presence of sin and brokenness in our lives? In other words, given that there are paradoxically good things that come from having sin, death, and suffering in the world (compassion, empathy, community, medicine, catharsis, perseverance (Rom. 5)), what would it look like to incorrectly deal with our sin and thereby fail to access the blessing God could turn it into?
R: My hypothesis was that “R” for this particular framework would be the elimination of “C.” The process is twofold: Jesus first redeems us from sin through substitutionary atonement (eliminating sin in God's eyes), and then we respond by actively attempting to eliminate the “C” of sin in our lives.
Hope this helps in some way.
Marié Dippenaar
Comments
Post a Comment