PADRE RICHARD MATANDA TESHA
JIMBO KATOLIKI MOSHI.
AINA ZA MALEZI( MODES OF FORMATION)
Shared Convictions and Implications which are basic/fundamental to the Work of formation
- Formation is an important Ministry (work) undertaking for the Church and for any religious institution because it guarantees its identity and its future. That is why Formation has always been the subject of many Synods, General and Local Chapters (meetings) resulting in many documents including the Law of the Church (Canon Law)
- There is awareness in the Church and in Religious institutes that things are not as perfect as expected or as they should be – sometimes judging by the end product. That is why we have a course like this and many other places of training for formation work
- There is an absolute need to invest in formation both in terms of personnel, finance, programs and sacrifice on the part of all those who are involved and especially the Formators – Jesus invest a lot on his Apostles – they had a special place in his heart and he had time for them
- Formation is a very rigorous program and it is not for the faint-hearted. And any attempts by the Formators or Superiors or any of the Formattees themselves to simplify or minimize the demands will lead to disastrous consequences. It is a call to holiness, to perfection; a call to show the heart of Jesus – This is a call to formation and to religious life. All Religious people are called to be with Jesus and some of us will be sent by Him.
- The more Formation is isolated from the Reality of the Paschal Mystery (Good Friday), the more it will loose its taste and value. But we are all too happy and comfortable with Paul’s recommendation of “a little wine for the good of the stomach” and for the sake of equality we nowadays apply it for both women and men and we insist that “little” is a relative term. But the fact is that pain, suffering anxieties etc will be part of our experience in our formation communities and we should never use pain killers, we should rather reconcile ourselves with it
- There are a number of challenges of formation for the Formators and the Superiors:
1) Finances, training of Formators programs of formation and its implementation
2) A different outlook on the part of the Formattees who have many whys’ and who want to know before they can love rather than loving before and in order to know.
3) Formattees who seem to be up-rooted, belonging to neither home nor to their religious society
4) Countering against secularization, globalization individualism etc, countering the ‘I’ and ‘me’ culture and promote ‘us’ and ‘others’ culture, countering the culture of rights without corresponding duties.
5) Need for professionalism and skills besides devotion and piety.
- Formation is a team-work and hence a need to build friendship, respect, trust, mutual support , common vision, etc
- Absolute necessity of communication and communicate good news. It seems we have no problem communication bad news; our potential listeners give us an impression that good news is not news at all!
- Formation is the work of God, it is the work of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:14-15). Hence members of the formation community and the community itself should nurture and deepen their relationship with the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the Formator per excellence. It is not by accident that this Course of Formators is taking place during these days when the Church and we are praying for the coming of the Holy Spirit and will end at the eve of the Feast of the Pentecost. We are but the material he uses for formation…. and sometimes useless material!
- Every person in a house of formation is a GIFT to the community formation. But a gift has to be given and has to be received – given in various forms (friendship, mutual support, admonition, availability to the other etc).
- Formators are forming candidates for the entire institute, for the Church and ultimately for God as Jesus’ disciples and the Formators should never loose sight of this wider view and they should always use the standards of Jesus despite his own fragility and weaknesses.
- When the work of Formation is properly undertaken, it will remain an exciting, joyful and a rewarding venture to both the superiors (as they give assignment to the new and reliable members), the Formators ( as they eventually hear about their students faithful, happy and successful in mission) and the Formattees (opportunity to give back what they have been receiving)
MODELS OF FORMATION
INTRODUCTION
The Church law regarding formation has progressed significantly through three (3) major stages in the last century (20th), and of recent there have been frequent documents on Religious formation at least within the period of every five years.
First, the 1917 Code of Canon Law
Second, Renovationis Causam in 1969
Third, the 1983 Code of Canon Law
Present Documents
Ø Essential elements of the Religious life (1983)
Ø Directives on Formation in Religious Institutes (1990)
Ø Fraternal life in Community (1994)
Ø Post Synodal Exhortation; Vita Consecrata (Consecrated life) (1997)
During this 21st century, a congress on Religious life took place in Rome
The call to Renew Religious life initiated by Vatican II was quickly followed by requests to the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes (SCRIS), from institutes to revise the norms governing formation. Institute made the request based on their understanding that the conditions of contemporary life, new apostolic needs and the emphasis on the particular charism of each institute necessitated changes regarding regulation for formation. This tells you immediately where we were at that time and the urgency to “open the windows for fresh air” as regards formation.
As such SCRIS responded in 1968 with the instruction Renovationis Causam. R.C. came as an interim to reduce the number of legal norms, made the norms more flexible such that Institutes can have the ability to adjust quickly to new insights and possibilities to move beyond the obvious boundaries. The Code of 1983 gave a wider scope for Formation Ministry. For instance, for the first time, it underlined that Formation is a Life Long process and it is primarily the responsibility of the Individual. It was a turning point for formation work; with the results that different approaches to formation began to emerge and continue up till this day. Unfortunately, some have gone to the extreme; some are “stuck” with the “old model”, others have move beyond expectations, others keep on experimenting, such that one begins to wonder – and poses the question – “Where are we heading to”? What is needed is a healthy tension style of formation.
The 1990 document came as requested to give valuable directions, guidance and to set boundaries for formation ministry. “It hopes, finally, to be of special help to institutes which are coming into existence and to those which at this time have few means of formation and information at their disposal.” (Directives on Religious Formation no. 4)
PHILOSOPHY OF FORMATION
By way of description, philosophy of formation is a particular system of principles used in formation; a set of principles which builds upon and expands the assumptions of formation. It is a reference point from which flows the concrete details of a program of formation. Unless formation personnel are clear about their assumption, it is impossible to have a clear philosophy of formation. Certainly, this depends on each institute and its own underlying motives.
These assumptions could set the tone for a kind/type of model to be utilized at each moment in Formation. The following paragraphs give an idea of some possible assumptions in several areas.
- Philosophical Assumptions
Mankind is capable of growth, i.e. of actualizing the potential within himself/herself. Though man is a unity, he/she has different levels of operation and, consequently, different levels of growth (philosophical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual). Each level has its own mode and principles of growth and healing, yet each is inter-related. This growth is conditioned and influenced by external circumstances (people, events, heredity culture); however, to the extent that his/her freedom is unimpaired, each person is responsible for who he/she is and who he/she becomes. Who he/she becomes flows out of his/her relationship and interaction with others and with the Transcendent.
- Theological Assumption
Christ is fully human and came to bring all men and women the fullness of life (Jn 10:14ff). Christ is fully God and came to draw all people into a new relationship with each other and with God. The church, the extension of Christ in time and space, shares in His ministry and mission. And though each member shares in these, some are called to a special public ministry and mission: - Religious/Priests.
All Christians are called to a process of discipleship, conversion, and “being sent”, always suggesting directions for appropriate renewal. Those who have received a special vocation are called in a particular way to make a free response to the initiatives of God.
- Psychological Assumption
Growth begins at the point where a person is. It moves beyond the present state of security or insecurity, of equilibrium or tension toward a higher level of integration. This entails risks which are anxiety – provoking. The willingness to face such risks is essential to Religious formation and is greatly facilitated in an atmosphere of freedom, trust, and understanding. Growth is a unique experience for each individual; its pace and thrust should result from dialogue between the formation personnel and the individual.
There is no simple method by which formation personnel can clarify their assumptions in the formation process. They need to spend time in prayer, reflection, and discussion, especially when problems in formation arise, to bring all their assumptions to the fore and to discern if they have a consensus.
In summary, a philosophy of formation is important, indeed necessary for the following reasons.
Ø To permit fresh articulation of the living tradition of our congregation/Institute by each generation in its own terms.
Ø To bring to conscious awareness our goals, our ideas, and our vision in order that our programs of formation will implement these clearly and effectively.
Ø To communicate our goals, our ideas, and our vision more explicitly and more effectively.
Ø To provide a focal point for understanding the present experience of formation and also a reference point for evaluation and future change.
Ø To help foster a vehicle for continual creative development through regular systematic evaluation.
WHAT IS A MODEL?
By definition, models are teaching devices used to enable people to conceive of some aspects of Reality as a whole. As such for example when a model is substituted for the reality of God rather than used simply to assist humans in conceiving of it, the result is idolatry (Rogers, 1974; 59)
Jesus continually worked toward model and paradigm shift on the part of his hearers. He employed model – type analogies such as mustard seed, the sower, leaven, treasure, a pearl etc. If we are correct in identifying the concept of model with the “dim image in a mirror” (1Cor 13:12) concept, we may be able to claim an important correspondence between this understanding and the way things really are. If not, we are still searching.
On another line of thought, a model is a way a formator/formation team carry out their role in terms of accompaniment, and how they are perceived by those being accompanied.
INSTITUTIONAL MODEL
By this model, we mean a system in which the institutional element is treated as primary. It focuses on the institute structure, hierarchy, organization, rules and doctrines. For instance, it is self-evident that the church of Christ
There are structures that have to be maintained; therefore tradition has to be handed over in a proper manner. This is based mainly on the authoritative position of the formator/leader as the person entrusted with the task of instructing others and handing down the truths of Religious life and its institutes. We could term this model a “Direct Approach”. This is popular in counselling. It is a traditional approach to counselling which views the counsellor as the one who knows and is therefore able to help his client through what he regards as the “way forward”. The basic assumption here is that there is a known, tried and tested way of dealing with issues in the Institute which is available to the formator, whose main duty is to help the candidate as to what to do. She/he has acquired the ‘know-how’ through several years of life experience.
The starting point is usually the prescribed constitutions, life of the founder/founderess, and the histories of the congregation with its activities, charism and characters in the Congregation.
In formation, this style is marked by a continual reference to organization/institute rules, regulations of the house/community etc. because it leans towards the authority of a person or system. The style assumes that people will not do anything unless told to, and the formator sees him/herself as being indispensable, because he/she is ‘the only one who really knows what is going on’ and he/she alone can make decision quickly. The formator schooled in Institutional thinking is very conscious of the expectations of those in higher authority, and must please them at all cost. It is obvious that prominence will not be given to discussion method as a form of learning. The Institutional model is easily identified with old “Banking approach” to education based on transmission of information from Teacher to pupil.
With this system Paulo Freire (1980) in his book, speaks about the Teacher and Pupils. The teacher seen as possessing all essential information; pupils seen as “empty vessels”, needing to be filled with knowledge, and pupils absorb passively.
The relationship of “Formator and formatees/candidates is in the context of teacher and pupil or of course it is presumed that there are other factors operating so that the candidate’s personal understanding of being religious is complemented to their life in community.
There is a great desire to have a clear guideline delineating the roles and responsibilities, especially of the candidates. Doubtless, the duties of a “good” candidate are stressed in many ways; frequent Holy Mass attendance, punctual at community prayers, often in the chapel for personal reflection, focus on loyalty to the group or the authorities, no open confrontation or dissension, stress of obedience to those in charge; Devotional exercises like the Rosary, Benediction, Holy hour, stations of the cross etc. are held in high esteem. Very concerned about the external factors/activities thereby ensuring herself/himself that “all is good”, “we are great” “we are doing well”, placing emphasis more on personality ethic as opposed to character ethic. What do I mean by this? According to Stephen Covey (1990) shortly after World War I, the basic view of success/achievement shifted from the character Ethic to what we might call the personality ethic. Success becomes more a function of personality of public image, of attitudes and behaviours, skills and techniques, that lubricate the processes of human interaction.
I am not suggesting that these elements again like personality growth, communication skill training are not beneficial, in fact sometimes essential for success. But they are secondary, not primary traits. Character ethics as a foundation for success includes elements like: Integrity, honesty, humility, fidelity, temperance, modesty and the like. People can only experience effective living, true success and enduring happiness if they learn and integrate these principles into their basic characters.
For the Institutional model it is crucially important that everything remains essentially the same as it was when it began “Hold fast to the Tradition” or “Hold on to the fort”. This is how it has been done over the years and has achieved great success for our Lord. In operating a World view like this it brings a strong sense of corporate identity. They know clearly who they are, what they stood for, where they are heading, when they are succeeding and when they are failing. With a structure like this, it is easy to evaluate the person/candidate. E.g. “Are they fitting in with what we want?” But what will be the results in the long term?
BENEVOLENT MODEL
This style is characterized by the “Father like” or “Mother like” concern the formator has for the candidates. We could also call this model the “paternalistic” approach/style or over protection. The paternal formator identifies closely with the candidates.
Here the desire is to keep everyone in the group/formation house satisfied and happy; including the formator. He/she believes that stress or tension within the house is bad and perhaps even unchristian for the house and in the long run for the institute. In deed he/she will not allow anything upsetting to get to them.
The candidates are provided with everything and usually captioned “The provided Institute” or “the providing formator”. But discipline is hard to maintain and coordination often suffers with this style.
Formators whose style appears to be benevolent tend to be group oriented and thus gives candidates considerable freedom in their formation process. Often this continuum is extended beyond benevolent types of leader to include laissez-faire attitude/style. This kind of a leader also gives minimum direction and provides maximum freedom for group decisions; yes this style could be quite permissive; few policies/guidelines are established in the house and practically everyone is left on his/her own. Indeed policies become the group decision. As we follow intensely, the formator in this kind of structure is there to assist, suggest, and allow adequate communication to flow so that the entire group is alerted to issues, and when they are stuck the formator comes to their rescue. The formator simply performs a maintenance function. This style is used believing that one of the best ways to motivate others is to involve them in decision making. This model lends itself best to those formatters who are away a lot from the formation houses, or who have been temporarily put in charge and as such do not want to “Rock the boat”, or make any major decisions. It could also be a formator who wants “cheap popularity” or “fame” or one who fears confrontation especially from the younger group.
Such formators are ‘too diplomatic’ and do not want to hurt anyone, but once a while, they strike with certain reservations. Formators with this model work under certain basic assumptions with a grounded Biblical basis. For example the writer of the book of Proverbs reminds us that people are important and to run roughshod over them is detrimental. “Without people, a prince is ruined.” (Prov. 14:28). Formators do not want to make candidates as slaves and paupers. Let us guard these candidates who have come and let us not lose them. They will discover more about themselves. They are precious and can offer help in the future, if they are well pruned.
A formator schooled in this thinking is a bit ambivalent in making a genuine evaluation/assessment of candidates. She/he feels the inadequacy, brokenness and fragility. It is based on the fact that a vocation is a deep mystery of faith, with God at its centre; that God who is its author is leading each one along a unique path that accords with the divine intention, and that ordinarily God uses the human formator to guide souls along this path.
Sir John Harvey Jones once said “In my experience, it is extremely difficult to teach grown up people anything. It is however relatively easy to create conditions under which people will teach themselves”. This is a strong view of formators who make a case for the above model.
To these formators, they hold the opinion that they have the God-given right to be who they are, to feel good to pursue what can bring happiness, peace, joy, and not stress and they equally see that in the candidates.
Formators of this kind at most times have difficulty showing negative feelings, including anger, if these feelings put them in conflict with candidates they care for. Even when they are angry, they are more likely to brood and become resentful than to express it directly. They continue ruminating with the idea that where leaders control by force, the society ceases to grow. We can speak of the same with formators vis-à-vis formatees/candidates. Yes, a benevolent formator is inclined to be narrow, and at times an extremist. He is often fanatical because he/she thinks provincially, exclusive of other groups; has strong convictions about what he does, could become obstinate, stubbornly denying that problems and conflict exist or that anything is wrong.
At their best, these formators become self-possessed, and have great equanimity and genuine contentment, feel autonomous and fulfilled. As usual, they are too agreeable and conciliatory, accepting roles and expectations naively and unquestioningly. They are quite optimistic, reassuring, kind and unpretentious. They make candidates feel comfortable in their midst; there is no trace of threatening qualities. At times these virtues are of utmost importance for the up coming Religious.
One of the essential virtues associated with this model is patience. Profound patience is a deep “letting be” of the other so that the other can develop in his or her own way.
Generally, with this model, formators are gifted storytellers, able to communicate simply and effectively to candidates. They want to see things the way they want them to be, they reinterpret reality to make it more comforting and less threatening, simple and less daunting. This style/model provides good strength, but on the whole its weaknesses can be most glaring.
HUMANISTIC MODEL
The good is in you, bring it out!
The term “Humanistic” grew out of the philosophical background of the Existential tradition. It is borrowed from great psychologists like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow only to mention a few, who were great champions of this trend of thought. The essential feature of this thought is the stress that humans have enormous potentials for personal growth. It emphasizes the importance of free will, the human ability to make choices, and the uniqueness of the individual.
The terms which characterize this approach are: capacity for self-awareness, freedom and responsibility, searching for meaning, anxiety as a condition of living, integrity, experience, authenticity, transparency and the like.
For example, in the early 1940, Carl Rogers developed what was known as non-directive counselling as a reaction against the directive and traditional psychoanalytic approaches to individual therapy. Rogers
There is a consistent theme that forms the underpinnings of most of Roger’s writings – a deep faith in the tendency to develop in a positive and constructive manner if a climate of respect and trust is established. Rogers
Nevertheless, this positive view of human nature has significant implications for formation.
1. Develop the theory of self-direction or “Auto-Formation” and not self-guidance. By and large, formation is primarily the responsibility of the Individual.
2. Create a suitable environment and make it possible for individuals to grow and actualize him/herself.
3. Acknowledging the uniqueness and authenticity of each person.
4. Because we are essentially free, we must accept the responsibility for directing our lives. We are responsible for our actions.
5. The conception of self in the process of becoming as opposed to the self as a product is crucial.
6. Looking outside for validation of personhood is not encouraged.
7. Basic trustworthiness of human nature and tendency to become a “fully – functionary person” is prominent.
Formators schooled in this thinking have adopted the approach and is gaining grounds in formation circle, getting the good out of the candidates. The candidates now begin to find out that they are worthwhile so they get behind them the masks they have worn which have developed over the years. It is easier for them to talk to the formator, there is no major impediment in the sense of self-disclosure.
There is a greater room to emphasize immediate subjective experiences that are unique to each candidate. It is an exhaustive task as the formator has to treat each person differently and on his/her own pace, though the opportunity always comes for the formator to challenge the candidates. It becomes the responsibility of the candidate to meet up those challenges; all helping them to move forward and become what they are capable of becoming. On the other hand, it is an opportunity to learn a lot.
Certainly, “listening skills” is an essential feature in this model and formators have to develop this art and discipline of listening. It provides the opportunity for candidates to have a “built-in-safety features”, thereby making them be themselves, and at the same time enabling formators adopting their (candidates) internal frame of reference and staying with them as opposed to getting ahead of them with interpretations about oneself in performing the roles and in dealings with candidates. Some questions and challenges of formatees challenge formators to deepen their insights and information.
At best with this model, candidates are formed to be self-assertive, self-confident and courageous; learn to stand up for themselves for what they need and want. They are made to welcome and love challenges and are often self-starters, taking the initiative and making things happen in community houses. Doubtless they love adventure and risk taking to test and prove themselves, not afraid of making mistakes.
There are times when this model provides positive points for life, but there are a lot of areas of growth. More often than not, frustrations and conflicts encountered in the process of becoming fully human could occupy the human mind more than the ultimate goal he/she aspires to. There is a tendency to be selfish in focus. Humanistic model could focus on what is good for the self but often ignore what is good for the general welfare of others.
Another defect is the inclination to be too optimistic. The belief that all humans are driven by a positive and innate growth potential may be naïve and unrealistic. Furthermore, ambition could be a problem, though it is essential, because it is fundamental if a person is to be a self-starter. Otherwise he must content him/herself with being a follower rather than a leader.
Ambition must be realistic. Some people set impossible goals for themselves. Being over zealous, they drive themselves to complete exhaustion or through frustration, which may lead to a neurotic depression.
Usually candidates are formed to have strong egos, and their feelings of self-esteem and self-respect must be satisfied, through their own efforts.
Yes, ambition is so important because it is self-sustaining and contagious provided it is not faked. At the end of the day, the challenge is to be a good Christian and a good religious and the highest ambition must be to bring honour and glory to Christ with the drives, motivations, enthusiasm, and hope, all controlled by the Holy Spirit.
DISCIPLESHIP MODEL
As the name suggests, this model is highly Biblical. The caption words here are follow, seek, stay remain etc. The roots of the Discipleship Model can be traced to the New Testament and even to the earthly ministry of Jesus. From there it is evident that Discipleship is a wide and flexible concept; has undergone a series of evolution, with different understanding culminating in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost when the presence of Jesus was universalized. One would then follow Jesus by faith, worship and inward transformation.
Who is a disciple? Or better put; what is discipleship? A Disciple is a follower of Jesus Christ; it involves a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ. As it is a relationship, it involves two parties – a mentor/leader and a follower. Jesus functions as a mentor par excellence, encouraging his disciples to follow him and to exercise themselves in service to others. “A disciples then is a follower in need of a Religious mentor”.
In the words of Enda McDonagh, “Disciples are called to recognition, acceptance, service and proclamation of the Kingdom.” Two obvious constituent features of discipleship are life and prayer.
In the New Testament, especially the Gospels, we find a special closeness between Jesus Christ and his disciples. There is always an invitation to “come and see”, and then begin to learn and follow Christ.
Jesus encounter with the two would – be disciples was an in a form of a question; “What are you looking for?” (Jn 1:38). It is the same question he poses to Mary of Magdala at the end of the Gospel; “Whom are you looking for?” (Jn 20:15) and in all, Jesus said; “Come and you will see” (Jn 1:39). It is a summons for them to see more deeply who Jesus is; and to become one with him. For all who hear true testimony about Jesus are expected to “follow” (1:37, 38, 40, 43), Which is a standard word for becoming a disciple. Words such as ‘follow’, ‘seek’, ‘stay’, ‘remain’ and ‘see’ are all aspects of the discipleship process, hence Discipleship Model of Formation.
The process of Discipleship Model implies that learning is vital and mutual. It presupposes the master – apprenticeship style of operating; in our present age, the disciple is the religious equivalent of the apprentice. The Apprenticeship model would require that formators and formatees be close to each other, yet with a set of ‘boundaries’.
Reviews of Research (Bandura 1969) indicate that a Model who is similar to the observer with respect to age, sex, race and attitude is more likely to be imitated than a Model who is unlike the observer. Further, Models who are humble, competent, committed in their performances and who exhibit warmth tend to facilitate modeling effects. This could be said of the Discipleship Model.
At the invitation to ‘come and see’, John the Evangelist spoke about three extraordinary encounter with Jesus (Samaritan Woman at the well, the man born blind, and the family of Martha, Mary and Lazarus) and attempts to get readers to enter into the Key to Discipleship. In the case of the Samaritan woman, her attitude made her a more realistic model for discipleship that if she were eager to encounter Jesus. The story illustrates an initial coming to faith and the Samaritan woman remained close to Jesus at the well for much of the drama and entered into a fairly long dialogue with him. The man born blind illustrates how faith grows amid trials and often the first enlightenment does not result in adequate faith.
The third story which is about the raising of Lazarus, also illustrates the deepening of faith that comes through an experience of death. In each story we are dealing with a different stage of faith that throws light to the Role of Discipleship. In the modeling of Discipleship there is a certain amount of closeness, a lot of sharing and a tremendous dialogue such that a formator or formatee/candidate is often challenged to let go of some part of the self, even before it is clear what will replace this loss. Over – commitment to that aspect of self which seems threatened may lead to inability to let go and to trust oneself to the next stage of life.
There is always fear risking losing what shred of respect and authority we have left to manage our subjects; so there is a choice to operate from a safe distance where embarrassment would be minimal. However, if formation is to be effective, it requires intimate space as already mentioned. The formator cannot run away from that she/he is trying to form and that is precisely what Discipleship Model is about.
A friend of mine (a formator) told me he read at the back of a lorry recently the following expression’ “in the school of life, there are no graduates, all are students.” Yes with this model we are all students of formation; and the school of life provides abundant opportunities for learning. What is needed of us is the willingness and openness to learn.
- from our brokenness and mistakes
- from the formatees/candidates
- from the experience of other formators
Even when Jesus chose the 12 Apostles, Mark the Evangelist was quick to remark that these men were to be his close companions. Jesus was not afraid of accompanying his disciples because he was not afraid of disclosing and sharing who he was. Nevertheless, accompanying candidates in this modelling reveals who we truly are, bringing out our inadequacy, our brokenness, our fragility as well as our strengths. Some people would prefer not to risk disclosing themselves and that will certainly render this style ineffective. In John Powell’s book we hear his “interlocutio” declaring, “I am afraid to tell you who I am because if I tell you who I am, you may not like who I am and it’s all that I have.”
Self disclosure on both sides is an essential ingredient with this model. At the same time we have to safeguard the tendency of too much self disclosure on behalf of the formator. The two books of John Powell are worth reading to liberate us from the bondage “Why I am afraid to tell you who I am” (1969), and “Why I am afraid to Love”
Part of the aim of discipleship is to come to know what the Master knows. The early followers wanted to know who He was and where he lived. They came to see for themselves and he taught them all they needed to know. There is a feeling of each person in the Model of Discipleship to see himself/herself as a pilgrim in a global community.
The pilgrim is always searching, and he must never fail to listen to the other pilgrims. Pilgrims hasten to more life, more truth, more of what truly makes them alive. The Pilgrimage never ends – this is the model advocated in our age. Those who have a Role of Leadership as Formators cannot claim special privilege, religious pedigree or special insights into the meaning of the path. They are pilgrims to an extent that they follow the pilgrimage. Yes there is co-searching, co-helping, co-sacrificing, co-agonizing etc. This has to be handled in a balance and fruitful way. It is important to note that all peoples on earth are on a pilgrimage, that we are all the same, that we can help each other, that those who can read the signs of the times are the true leaders of the Pilgrimage.
The concept of discipleship is there to remind us that, discipleship always depends upon a prior invitation or vocation from Christ, demanding call that brings with it the grace needed for its own acceptance, and not our own will to power. It suggests that the formation ministry and for that matter the Institute/Congregation as a whole is deficient and stands under correction and as such will always be in need of conversion and renewal on the part of everybody. The discipleship Model seems to offer a lot of challenges and make demands on each party in the formation ministry, because of the advantage it has of being grounded in the Holy Scripture; and notably in the Gospels. Without doubt it motivates the people in the formation ministry to imitate Jesus in their personal lives.
Like any other model listed here, the discipleship model has its limitation. It has the tendency to be complacent; may be over critical of other models and looked down on them. As I have said, the Discipleship Model is only one perspective of seeing the whole, the other models are needed to remind us that Religious formation and for that matter, the Church is an Organic Reality.
WHICH MODEL/STYLE IS BEST?
Leaders/formators are different. And so are the candidates, which is another way of saying that some situations demand one model of Formation, while others demand a different one.
Formators are different, institutes/congregations are different. And at any given time the needs of an institute/corporate body do vary from time to time. Since institutes do not continually change their leaders, it follows that those leaders/formators will need different models/styles at different times. The appropriate model/style depends o great deal on the task of the institute, the phase of life of the institute, and needs of the moment. It would be religiously incorrect to either dismiss or canonize any of them. May be it is a question of priority.
What are some examples of how the task of the Institute/Formation house affects leadership style/model? You will see that at a point in time the different models just discussed – could be effective and efficient.
A case study is a New Founded Congregation. The founder of a new Institute is often a figure with charism who knows intuitively what is to be done, and how to do it. Since the vision is hers/his, s/he is best able to impart it to others without discussion, and that obviously affect the stages of Formation.
But during periods of slow growth or consolidation or expansion, the institute needs to be much more reflective and do a lot of dialogue.
FITTING STYLE TO INSTITUTE/FORMATION HOUSES
It follows that ideally a formator/leader should have different styles. S/he should be a person of all seasons – which is a tedious task due to character, temperament, and the ‘institute/school/order/congregation’ we come from.
WHERE ARE YOU?
What type of Model are you operating? A glance through this paper or others read will help you to discover. Hopefully you will discover that you have exercised different models of formation at different times or you have remained adamant and fixed to a model. Do you have evidence that you can change your style/model as needed? Or as you think of the decisions made in the past 6 months – one year, do you discover that they were always made the same way (by you, by others, together or likewise).
WHERE IS YOUR INSTITUTE AT?
What kind of leadership does your institute need at this time and for that matter the Model of Formation? What phase is the Institute as far as growth is concerned? What are different needs of this moment? Are different models of leadership/formation needed for different aspects of the institute?
WHERE DO YOU GO FROM HERE?
For instance, review your Programme of Formation/your calendar of meetings for the past three months with your candidates. What happened? Were you there just to announce your own decisions? Or you went there with a hidden agenda? Or you went expecting to work with the group to arrive at a decision? Or you went hoping to draw from them their positive strengths? Or you did not go at all in order to avoid conflict, tension etc?
If you discovered that you handled each meeting in the same way, you are probably locked into one model and should consider knowingly attempting to modify your model/style as a function of the situation you are in.
If you have been limiting yourself to one model/style, sudden changes will often result in confusion in the candidates. It may be necessary for you to spell out clearly the direction you want to follow and how you expect the accompaniment and decision – making process to work, with special help from t6he formation team.
FLEXIBILITY IS THE KEY
Each model has its advantages and weaknesses and must be evaluated against actual life situations, because there are no hard, fast lines drawn between different models, still bearing in mind the mission of Christ.
The well adjusted, mature leader/formator has an advantage because he/she needs not be bound to a single method. S/he can be flexible without being threatened. Such a wise formator/leader will think carefully about the kind of style/model best suited for the situation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, some few thoughts come into mind. Reflecting on my experience as a formator in a religious milieu through the years, it is evident that my vocation to the Religious life and as a formator has always meant a call to experience God’s love in a unique and personal relationship with Him, no matter the model we apply in our different houses of formation.
So, first and foremost, is our commitment to the Person of God in Christ. This comes through the personal encounter we have had with the Son of God. The Measure of our Christian Performance is our love for one another and service to all “see how I have loved you” and “I came not to be served but to serve to give my life as a ransom for many.” (Mk ) These are some of the hallmark of Christian Leadership.
Down the ages in the Scripture, it has always been emphasized that our relationship is more important than our accomplishment/achievement. God will get His work done. Regardless of the Model that emerge and regardless of the programmes that are developed to address life; formation to religious life remains always the Work of the Lord. This truth must be embraced as the first disciple and foundation of Religious Formation.
I hasten to add as a matter of fact, that we are all called to be faithful and not to be successful. Let us acknowledge before the Lord that “everything we achieve is truly the result of what you do.” (Isaiah 26:12)
Thanks for your understanding and patience during this presentation. God bless you all.
REFERENCES
- DULLES, A. (1990), Models of the Church, Doubleday and company, Inc. Garden City,
- McDonagh, E., (1982), The Making of Disciples, Gill and Macmillan LTD. Golden bridge.
- WHITEHEAD, E. E., & WHITEHEAD, J., (1992) Christian life Patterns, Crossroad Publishing Company,
- ENGSTROM, T. E., (1976) The Making of a Christian Leader, ZONDERVAN Publishing Company,
- KRAFT, C. H., (1981) Christianity in Culture, Orbis Books,
- The Code of Canon Law (1983)
- Potissimum Institutioni; Directives on Religious Formation (1990)
- John Paul II (1996) Post – synodal Apostolic Exhortation, VITA Consecrata,
- John Powel, Why am I Afraid to tell you who I am?
- O’Reilly, M., (1986) A handbook for Religious Formators.
- BANSIKIZA, C., Restoring Moral Formation in
WEWE KAMA MLEZI SOMA MAKALA HAYA UYAELEWE VIZURI
ReplyDelete