Doubt Fortifies Faith

DOUBT FORTIFIES FAITH

.

As we are in the year of FAITH, I would like to reflect on the doubt of St. Thomas which fortified his Faith in Jesus.  “What is faith?”  Faith has several definitions, but I would like to stick to the biblical answer, given by the author of Hebrews,  which reads, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).  The first thing we notice in this assertion is that, faith is something that is substantial, not insignificant. Secondly, faith represents a type of conviction. It is the conviction of the unseen. When the Scripture says that faith is the conviction of things not seen, what are we to understand that to mean? This sentence is well explained in the “Yes” of our Blessed Mother Mary. When it was announced to her that she would be the mother of Jesus, she said “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.”(Luke 1: 38). Yes faith involves placing one’s trust in something. Of course Faith is not just a set of beliefs instead it is total trust in God and Jesus Christ. If one trusts God, one will also believe God. In that sense, faith also involves beliefs. Ultimately faith in God means believing in things that we cannot prove. It is the conviction of the unseen.

  In the meantime, to trust what we do not see is not necessarily a matter of being irrational. Without reason, the content of faith would be unintelligible and meaningless. Thus faith is not the same as reason; but then again it is rational and reasonable. When we say that faith is rational we mean faith is intelligible and not absurd or illogical. It was Augustine who declared that faith without evidence is credulity.  The servants of God or prophets sent by God took a rational, measured approach to their faith. — This is very evident in the gospel of St. John 20:31. “But these (Signs and Miracles) are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing, you may have life in his name.” Certainly, we are also encouraged to do the same as servants of God, in order to believe and through believing to have life in his name.

 “My Lord and my God” is the profound faith expressive words of St. Thomas the Apostle. St. Thomas many a times accidentally referred and preached as a doubting person. But I would like to present him as a faithful and faith-filled person of Jesus. For the doubt of St. Thomas shed light on his faith and abetted him to experience Jesus intensely. The words of our blessed Mother “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”; The hesitation and the plan of St. Joseph, to dismiss Mary quietly; the doubt of Zechariah are some of the very strong examples to ratify that doubt or reason clarifies, fortifies, strengthens, reinforces, supports, and builds up the faith. Faith and reason complement and support each other mutually. Knowing and understanding why you believe, what you believe, is done through reason. Belief without reason can often be destructive or even dangerous.

The flip side of reasonless faith is faithless reason. Some study deeply into the reasons for faith, giving credibility to the arguments, but failing to develop a personal relationship with God by walking and talking with Him. Establishing solid reasons for faith will not automatically produce faith. St. Thomas for example doubted and searched for reason but he did not fail to develop a personal relationship with Jesus whereas he came to different parts of India and preached the faith that he experienced and he breathed his last breath for Christ. Consequently, every seeker must go further and, having been fortified with doubt, having experienced faith, one must knock, and He will open the door of living faith.

Do Teachers Make a Difference?

Do Teachers Make a Difference?

“Every person”, said Gibbon, the Historian, has two educations: “one which he receives from others, and one, more important, which he gives himself.” And Sir Walton Scott, a psychologist confirmed this when he wrote: “the best part of every man’s education is that which he gives himself.”  Yes, it is important to know that every educator is called to give what s/he has received. But problems related to discipline are becoming a major source of concern in the life of every teacher today. The majority of teachers are very much concerned about problems of student discipline and they forget the mission they are called to.

Here psychologist like Marvin J. Woodstrup  would mention a list of mistakes that we educators make in facing the student discipline.  According to him teachers could avoid a good many discipline problems if they avoided the word “WHY?”, while speaking to students who are advanced and who misbehave or are suspected of misbehavior.   When a student who has behaved incorrectly is asked “Why”, he tends to react with a flippant response. Instead of asking a student “why?”, Woodstrup recommends the teacher to tell the student that what s/he has done, is incorrect, and then say what is to be done. For example: “Jesper, I saw you smoking in the boys’ lavatory. See me at 3:15p.m.” or again “Arun and Priya, I am sorry to say that I think you cheated on today’s class test. See me at noon today and I will give you another quiz on the same material.” Asking a student “Why?” encourages the student to rationalize his or her misbehavior. We should not demand to hear the reasons, nor should we put students in situations that demand covering up or lying.

Woodstrup also recommends against making threats, such as: If I catch you fighting again, I’ll send you to the office; if you are late just once more, you will have to stay after school; if I ever see you smoking again, I will ask the Head Master to suspend you. The issue about such threats is that the teacher who makes them implies that it is all right to misbehave this time, but not next time. Such a statement confuses the students. What the teacher should do is to say right then and there what should be done about the offense. Thus both the offender and other students learn what the consequences of misconduct are, and the offender is offered a realistic chance to do something to improve his behaviour. Discipline, however, depends not so much on techniques but on the willingness of teachers to respect students as individuals and to take the time and trouble to understand them.

   To clinch the issue, discipline simply means respect for the teacher on the part of a student and respect for a student on the part of a teacher. But most of us look at discipline as punishment. We think of punishment (both corporal and psychological) as a means to instill discipline in the students. On the contrary, most of the psychologists opine that teachers who are most effective avoid punishment and rely on psychological means to control student misbehavior. Even the psychological means are effective only if the teacher has a positive relationship with the pupil and the student in turn understands clearly what it is s/he is being punished for. Imposing discipline on the student by the teacher is necessary to some degree.

As Children grow they need control, direction and guidance. But as they grow, children become more mature, and they want to develop standards of self-discipline of their own.

 Here the problem of the teacher with respect to discipline may be seen in terms of a problem in leadership. Leadership can be identified in two dimensions: ‘initiation of structure’ and ‘consideration’. Leadership activities concerned with the ‘initiation of structure’ include direction, control, punishing, setting limits, rewarding, manipulating, organizing, scheduling, maintaining standards, and the like.  Instead, ‘consideration’ includes such behaviour as extending sympathy and understanding, compromising, helping, inviting the use of suggestions of others, and being supportive. Most leadership roles call for both ‘initiation of structure’ and ‘consideration’, and it is generally undesirable to stress one to the exclusion of the other. We may say that most teachers tend to make a mistake by providing more ‘initiation of structure’ than ‘consideration’. Perhaps the worst learning situations result when teachers provide neither ‘initiation of structure’ nor ‘consideration’.

As I place my pen down, I would like to emphasize that every teacher is called to make a difference in the lives of students. But to the question “Do teachers make a difference?” much remains unanswered today. The subject of discipline is becoming a real source of anxiety in the life of every teacher. Teachers are more worried about discipline than making difference in the lives of students.  One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those teachers who made difference. Let us not forget that teaching is the profession that teaches all other professions.  

Albert Kumar