287 Theology of Disclosure for Christian Citizenship Formation 9 the conversational community, which was scheduled for 12 March 2024, was prepared to discuss the joint theology of disclosure. The central aim of this meeting was to check if what was found and presented by the main researcher matched the memories, knowledge and experiences of the participants. A draft text of a theology of disclosure was sent by me, as the main researcher, to all of the participants a month before the meeting was scheduled to take place. They were asked to read the text closely and respond, individually, to five questions—and to bring their answers to the 19th meeting. The questions were as follows: 1. Is the entirety of this theological insight recognisable to you from the meetings? 2. What do you recognise very strongly from the meetings we have had? 3. What do you not recognise from the meetings we have had? 4. What should be emphasised more strongly? 5. What should be phrased differently? The 19th meeting was opened, as usual, with a short devotion by a member of the outsider group. Inspired by the draft text, she chose to read Matthew 9: 35–38. In her personal explanation, she pointed to Jesus’ compassion, as shown in verse 36. Jesus did not shut Himself off from the needs of the people but was passionate with them. That is what compassion means. The devotion leader saw a connection with one of the pillars of citizenship education— namely, solidarity. It is compassion or solidarity that produces social cohesion and counteracts social fragmentation. It all starts with seeing. Jesus saw the multitudes and was moved with compassion for them. After the devotion, the nine participants were split into three groups to discuss their findings concerning the above-mentioned questions. In each group, both the insider and outsider teams were represented. After this group session, a plenary session followed (and was recorded with unanimous consent). In this plenary session, each group reflected on each of the five questions. To the first question, all of the groups responded positively. Elements from the draft text that were explicitly recognised included the following: the attitude of service, learning to connect, the shalom idea, the relational epistemology, the need to respond to fragmentation and individualism with cohesion, and the challenge of high ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. In addition to these elements, in response to question two, the following were strongly recognised: the feeling that differences are to be welcomed at school, the idea that good practices with diversity provide formative moments for students, the necessity of students stepping outside of their comfort zones to make this happen,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw