147 Christian Anthropology and the (W)Holistic Approach 3 Christian perspective. ‘Without minimizing the discussions about the seven scriptural passages, the Biblical bases for current definitions of marriage, or the reasons for protecting religious freedoms’, Joldersma (2016) stated, ‘this article suggests another approach’ (p. 33). This approach ‘does not require resolution of these conversations in the church or even agreement with all the assumptions above’ (Joldersma, 2016, p. 33). In the application of the shalom idea, Joldersma (2016) stated that LGBT students have a claim right (the term comes from Wolterstorff himself) not to be marginalised as a vulnerable minority group. LGBT students should feel welcomed and protected to share their feelings, although others may disagree with their practical choices, because ‘God not only loves justice, but (…) God’s love is directed toward human image bearers’ whom He wants to ‘be treated justly precisely because of that’ (Joldersma, 2016, p. 44). A third example of how the shalom idea has inspired Christian thinking and acting in today’s world can be found in the aforementioned Dutch publication (van Putten et al., 2017). In this collection, an essay by Kuiper compared the shalom idea to the critical educational philosophy of Biesta (2010, 2013). Wolterstorff’s Christian perspective overlapped significantly with Biesta’s perspective. The two shared the idea that schools educate for life and that education is about a way of being in the world. When Biesta (2013) distinguished his three target domains—qualification, socialisation and subjectification— he underlined the importance of subjectifying education, which means that students learn to be increasingly independent persons who relate to society in their own way and based on their own beliefs. Kuiper (2017) noted a parallel between Biesta’s (2013) subjectifying education and Wolterstorff’s (2004) education for shalom in forming students into responsible agents for shalom. In both cases, he recognised a ‘responsibility theory of education’ (Kuiper, 2017, p. 102). Kuiper (2017) concluded his essay by stating that Wolterstorff deserved a permanent place in the canon of Christian educational innovators. A fourth example can be found in the complete ‘pedagogy of shalom’ edited by Lee and Kaak (2017). Their work included a plea by Ann Palmer Bradley (2017) on mentoring. When she concluded that mentoring as a ‘model of relational empowerment’ brings back ‘the personal touch (…) to an impersonal, individualistic, and spectator society’ (Palmer Bradley, 2017, p. 179), her idea corresponded with Kuiper’s (2017) identification of a responsibility theory of education. Less clear in Palmer Bradley’s essay is the handling of what Biesta (2015) termed ‘the beautiful risk of education’—namely, how to respond when students do not assume their responsibilities as intended by a pedagogy of shalom. In the compilation edited by Lee and Kaak (2017), a number of areas
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw