Building a Hospitable Christian School Community: An Exploration of Theological Concepts That Inspire Dealing with Special Needs

Abstract

Current efforts toward inclusion in education have resulted in a strong emphasis on personalized learning. This article argues that biblical images of congregations and dealing with needs can inspire moves toward a hospitable community life in schools. Biblical keywords help us imagine how inclusive school practices can be shaped. Attention is given to safety, care and mercy, equivalence, justice, gifts, and carrying the load of others. Based on a theological exploration, the author calls for a number of moves: from the individual to the community, from instrumentalism to realism, from access to the school climate, from organization to pedagogy, and from risk to trust, as well as widening the lens from pupils to staff. A definition of hospitable education is proposed that stresses the equal importance of building communities in classrooms and among staff. For both parties, participants should influence the school climate by training themselves to appreciate a diversity of gifts and to be attentive to all kinds of needs.

1. Introduction

In this article, I aim to address a big issue in modern education from a theological perspective: the question of how to deal with differences in needs regarding cognitive and socioemotional development. When we look at classrooms, students are very different. This leads to the widely discussed problem of whether what a teacher offers in a classroom context is suitable for all students (Dewey [1916] 1966; Jackson 1962; Jonassen and Grabowski 1993; Roffey 2013; Scruggs and Mastropieri 2013). The problem of dealing with differences in gifts and needs is currently approached by the ideal of inclusive education, which aims to serve a diversity of students in the same setting (Haug 2016; Kefallinou et al. 2020; UNESCO 2017). While the author of this article agrees with this ideal, a problematic tendency in school practice can be observed. Inclusive education is pursued through highly individualized practices; that is, every student is treated as if they are in need of a personalized pedagogical approach (Abawi 2015; Bondie et al. 2019; Zhang 2024). This is problematic because a high level of differentiation leads to teachers focusing their attention on individual learning outcomes instead of the classroom and school system (Rapp and Corral-Granados 2021; Solheim et al. 2018). Pedagogical aims, such as consideration of each other, learning to work together, and learning to tolerate each other’s difficulties, which are usually highly prioritized in the ideals of teachers, are unintentionally pushed to the sidelines. Moreover, the tendency toward personalized approaches is highly demanding for teachers and teacher training institutions. If teachers should serve the broadest range of needs imaginable, they must be trained in a broad range of skills at an exceptional level (Mitchell 2007).

In this article, I argue for a practice of inclusive education that does not put the individual at the center but rather the community. Referring to biblical sources and the early ages of Christianity, and inspired by the concept of “hospitality”, which has deep roots in the Christian tradition, I argue that a Christian community is one that is hospitable (Pohl 1999; Smith 2018; Zizioulas 1999). In recent decades, this concept, originally used primarily in the hotel industry, has been adapted to education by several scholars. Anderson (2011) advocated that the teacher should nurture a classroom setting that conveys welcome, acceptance, and belonging. Stratman first applied the concept to furthering empathy in literature education and subsequently to the requirement that teachers know the names of their pupils (Stratman 2013, 2015). Marmon (2008) used it didactically, believing that a teacher, in their capacity as a “host”, should invite students to not only behave as recipients of knowledge but also contribute to knowledge construction. Smith (2009) and Ter Avest (2024) used the concept to argue that students from other cultures should not only be integrated into the existing population but also, more importantly, learn something from it. All of the aforementioned authors referred to the Bible, but none explored the connection with other key biblical concepts. This article aims to contribute to reflections on hospitality by summarizing the theological roots of hospitality and placing other central biblical images in a logical relationship with each other. It explores whether and how these theological sources can offer inviting alternatives to the major problem of differentiation, with its arguments combining the author’s expertise in both special needs education and practical theology.

The author approaches this study primarily from the perspective of education in Northwest Europe, in which inclusive education is presented as the standard and the trend toward personalized learning is prominent (Turner-Cmuchal and Lecheva 2022). In this context, many theological insights on dealing with diversity have been developed, especially in religious pedagogical literature. Therein, the focus is mainly on religious diversity (Knauth et al. 2020; Roebben and Kammeyer 2014; Ter Avest 2024), while, in this article, I apply inclusion specifically to differences in (special) educational needs. In addition, major challenges are experienced in this context with a growing teacher shortage (www.csee-etuce.org, accessed on 1 September 2024) and an increase in externalizing problem behavior (Papachristou et al. 2020). The trends described, including those of individualization and personalization, are occurring worldwide (Mincu 2012; OECD 2022). In this article, Christian schools are regarded as schools that profile themselves as such; they are fully or partially publicly funded in some countries, while, in others, they are privately funded.

This article answers the question of how theological notions related to the challenge of dealing with differences can inspire a school’s climate, which is defined as “the quality and character of school life” (www.schoolclimate.org, accessed on 13 September 2024) and can be taken as a general term for all levels of education. I concentrate foremost on primary and secondary education.

In the following sections, I begin by explaining the ecclesiological basis for the preference of the community ideal over the individual. Here, I provide reasons for using “hospitality” as a proper concept, which are related to a number of biblical principles that nourish hospitable practices. Next, I apply the results to directives for classrooms and staff. Through these applications, I argue that the scope of community thinking goes beyond initially welcoming children and addressing their needs, as is commonly pursued (Haug 2016). Embracing the concept of hospitality has an impact on a school’s overall climate. In the conclusion, I formulate a theologically inspired definition of hospitable education. Throughout the article, I relate the call for a community ideal in education to empirical research and educational philosophies, showing the feasibility of this ideal.

2. The Christological and Ecclesiological Bases of the Community Ideal

2.1. Christ, the Community, and the Virtue of Hospitality

The ideal of a school as a community is derived from the New Testament picture of the Church. There is a great diversity of images, and it is striking that they are all organic in character. The Church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27); Christ compares the relationship between Himself and His disciples to a vine and branches (John 15); and the Church is like a house built of different stones (Eph 2:19–22). The early church compared a local congregation to a household—in Greek, oikos (Eph 2:19). These metaphors reveal aspects of community and connectedness, and it is part of the identity of the Christian congregation that believers are connected to each other and can flourish thanks to each other. All members belong to the body, and with each other, they grow in love for the Church’s head, Christ (Eph 4:1–16; Ridderbos 1997, pp. 438–45; Wolter and Brawley 2015, pp. 253–64).

A central characteristic of the community of God is that everyone is welcome. The welcoming attitude has strong roots in the message Christ gives about Himself in Matthew (10:40–41): “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me” (Bonhoeffer 1972, pp. 248–49; Smith and Felch 2016, p. 66). The followers of Christ are called to welcome the other as if they were receiving Christ Himself into their midst. Accepting the other has to do with the recognition that Christ wants to accept the other (Rom 15:5–7) (Pohl 1999, p. 29). Followers of Christ should not think so much in terms of their own kindness but observe from the inviting promise of Christ (cf. Matt 18:10, 19:14). This rule for the New Testament congregation is explicitly expressed in Hebrews (13:2) with the words “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.” In this text, an important Old Testament notion of hospitality illuminates that space and time should be given unconditionally to a traveler on the move (Smith and Felch 2016, p. 67). In Leviticus (19:18), it is presented as an obligation related to one’s own experience of pilgrimage. Having been a stranger oneself and having received hospitality, one is called on to provide hospitality. These considerations have encouraged Christians to be hospitable to the vulnerable and marginalized (Pohl 1999, pp. 104–14).

2.2. The Community Ideal and the School

Can we apply this Church ideal to educational practices? This is a relevant question, all the more so when we consider that many Christian schools admit students with non-Christian backgrounds. The first reason to answer this question positively is that the Christian school as an institution can, in some respects, be regarded as an extension of the Church, and thus it intends to communicate the gospel (Grethlein 2016). The focus on the vulnerable and marginalized in Christian communities can be translated into special needs in education. The second reason is that, as commanded in the Old and New Testaments (see above), “community” not only has an internal movement but also an external movement (De Muynck and Kunz 2021, pp. 238–40), which are the movements of “belonging” and “being sent”, respectively. Practicing in a community involves both communion and missio, with the two being immediately connected (Van den Brink and Van der Kooi 2017, pp. 581–82). Schools also function in line with these two movements. Regarding the inward movement, they practice a liturgy and the lifestyle that goes with it. Concerning the external movement, schools that relate to the identity in Christ do not limit access to those raised in Christian families. Such schools also make space for a diversity of children independent of their backgrounds and (special) needs. All are invited to be part of the community.

The idea of hospitality suggests a radical ethos, which shows its fragility in everyday reality. There are limits to staff competences, financial resources, and housing, as well as limitations through legal regulations (Pohl 1999, pp. 127–49). The French philosopher Jacques Derrida made a helpful distinction: on the one hand, there is the law of hospitality, expressing a singular, radical demand, and, on the other hand, there are the laws of hospitality (plural), reflecting the need for practical arrangements. Regarding the first, “genuine hospitality must be absolute, asymmetrical, and unmasterable, going beyond even the capacity to welcome or the ability to receive” (Wortham 2010, p. 121). However, regarding the latter, the laws of hospitality “reflect the way that we actually do hospitality. They are conditional and limited and provide both guests and hosts with roles and obligations. Hosts welcome their guests to cross the threshold and provide guidance for how the guest should behave” (Chalwell 2018, p. 209). This distinction clarifies that a hospitable school cannot function as a dream but in real life with its practical boundaries. Hospitality cannot be practiced only by serving on demand—an idea that might easily come forth from inclusive education ideals.

The Rule of Benedict states that life in a monastery exists independently of the presence or absence of pilgrims (Smith and Felch 2016, pp. 69–70). Hospitality is thus provided as in a hotel, with the sole intention of meeting the needs of all visitors. Guests, although temporarily present, such as “pilgrims” staying in a monastery, are seen as participants who contribute to the existing community. The community is not entirely focused on pleasing customers but also has its own rules. At the same time, the well-being of the guest is not sacrificed to those rules. The abbot and the guest master, who are allowed “to ‘break’ rules of the community such as injunctions to fast or to keep silent, mediate between monastery and pilgrim” (Smith and Felch 2016, p. 70). The school is a temporary place to stay in which students, together with others, prepare for the next stage. To ensure the good progress of the community and meet the needs of its guests, staff must have a picture of what the visitor’s destination is and what can realistically be offered to the visitor. At the same time, it is clear—because the visitor is staying temporarily—that all kinds of things have already passed and that the journey will continue even after the visitor’s stay. Envisioning teachers as guest masters, they must mediate between a stable community and the pilgrim’s own path. They must protect the community while also helping the pilgrim by “selecting those activities that will refresh and nourish the pilgrim. That means, among other tasks, selecting not just what is fun to teach or what comes easiest to hand or what is currently recognized as ‘excellent,’ but rather what students need to know or receive from a community in order to continue their own pilgrimage” (Smith and Felch 2016, p. 70).

3. Biblical Keywords That Inspire Hospitable Practices

In this section, I relate the metaphor of the guesthouse and the host to basic New Testament principles that rule community life, which can be regarded as directives for the realistic “laws of hospitality”. These principles are helpful in further fleshing out the community ideal in an educational context. The justification for this exploration is that biblical meanings have value for practical situations in the present. Christian schools are involved in the story of God with humanity (Loder 2018). Human beings are called to make their own choices and can follow what is revealed in the scriptures (Wright 2013, pp. 122–23). This conviction also allows for an iterative search for principles. From the Bible, lines in the story of God draw direction for practice. Conversely, in the 21st-century educational setting, it is possible to search for what inspires the main problem in this article—namely, dealing with differences in educational needs. Therefore, I assume a unity of biblical meaning in the biblical narrative. Although an apparent problem of inner-canonical coherence exists, a consistent proclamation of the Kingdom of God in the biblical narrative can be assumed (Wright 2013, p. 53).

Thus, in the process of seeking principles for dealing with differences, teachers must first and foremost be thought of as a team of leaders of groups in which they must fulfill their professional tasks. At the same time, they take their religious beliefs seriously in their teaching jobs. As representatives of the body of Christ, they are not just expected to think as Christians but also to practice virtuousness. These factors direct the search in scripture and lead to a set of virtue principles: safety, care and mercy, equality, dignity, and justice. Two other principles are different in character. First, the word gift is central to Paul’s understanding of the congregation, which refers to the principle that, without exception, every member of the community is assumed to contribute to the whole. As will be shown, the word helps to name the differences between pupils. Second, bearing each other’s burdens, which has to be read as a command because it is counterintuitive, claims that resilience is not something individual but a responsibility of all members.

3.1. Safety

The first principle, closely related to hospitality, is safety. In the Old Testament context, the commandment to be hospitable is related to frequent threats of violence. To be hospitable means to provide protection and security. “To exercise hospitality is to enact an alternative to indifference, exploitation, or violence. A hospitable stance rejects an understanding of others as threats to be feared, as too much trouble, or as resources to be used” (Smith and Felch 2016, p. 67). That it is far from self-obvious that strong believers are examples of providing safety is reflected in the parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The representatives of the religious community—the priest and the Levite—deliberately pay no attention to the person in trouble, but the Samaritan brings the threatened person to safety. In Hebrew, safety is denoted by shalom, which is a broad concept for well-being, wholeness, and health. When Jesus is moved with the multitude (Matt. 9:36), He encounters people who feel agitated—the opposite of safety, peace, and well-being. He is filled with compassion and invites them to find safety with Him (Matth 11:28–29). This welcoming attitude contrasts with the practices of insecure social environments in which people feel excluded because they are compared with others. Those who are insignificant in the eyes of the majority (1 Cor 1:27) have to be seen and respected. The significance of the safety principle is in coherence with the call for schools as safe places as a requirement for inclusive education (Winter and Bamberger 2021; Roffey 2013; Sautner 2008).

3.2. Care and Mercy

Second, special educational needs can be related to the biblical mandate to care for those in need. God has given special laws to protect all those who are disabled (blind, deaf, and paralyzed) or at risk of social exclusion (widows, orphans, and strangers). They should not be hindered (Lev 19:14), and active attention is required. One may not turn away a call; one may not close one’s heart to it (Deut 15:7), but one must take action (Deut 15:11). In the New Testament Church, this demand is worked out in diaconal service. Care and mercy do not emerge automatically but need intentional action, as reflected in the parable of the Samarian (Luk 10: 31–32). The action aims to overwin the limitations of the person in need, such as slowness, clumsiness, and the help that is needed for what one cannot do oneself. The limitations of others cause stress for the helper and other group members, especially if they slow things down. This is why inclusive environments are usually assumed to increase stress for teachers. However, research has shown that this is not true for those who are intrinsically convinced that troubled students should be part of a community (Weiss et al. 2019).

3.3. Equivalence

Third, with care and mercy in mind, as explained in Section 3.2, one can think of two kinds of people: the healthy who help the sick and the strong who save the weak. In the school context, this can lead to the split image of, first, a group of average students—the strong—and, second, students with something special going on—the weak. However, the division that arises conflicts with the task of thinking in terms of equality. From person to person, we have to deal with the irreplaceable value that the Creator gives to every human being. The development of ideas on inclusive education is in coherence with this principle. The initial emphasis on the access of education (education for all) developed into attention for justice within education (UNESCO 2017). Paying attention to the rights of every individual, including gender, (dis)ability, culture, religion etc., has emerged as the norm, which has led to a pedagogy of recognition, in which the image of the strong and the weak is criticized (Bainbridge 2015; Prengel 2018).

3.4. Justice

Fourth, in following the reasoning about care and mercy in Section 3.2, it might seem that we should give all our attention to the care of special educational needs. This would mean that the “weaker” student is more entitled to the teacher’s attention than the “average” or “stronger” student. Parents may interpret a hospitable school as such. Because all children are welcome, the weaker students pull down the level, creating a situation of injustice. The weaker students receive much attention, while the others receive little. Biblically, there is reason to address the issue of justice. The needy are not to be favored (Deut 16:19; Lev 19:15; Spr 24:23; Zech 7:9–10), and there are no separate rights for at-risk groups. This means that at-risk children should not be treated as pity parties. As they are made in the image of God, those with limitations or special talents are also called to use their gifts in the service of God and their neighbors. In other words, the teacher takes everyone’s needs equally into account. At the same time, it may be fair to give some children more or different types of attention.

3.5. Gifts

Fifth, “the eye cannot say to the hand: I do not need you”, or “the head cannot say to the feet: I do not need you”, said Paul (1 Cor 12: 14–24). According to the community ideal of the Christian Church, everyone has their own place, without thinking in terms of more or less, strong or weak, and high or low. In the same way, a Christian school is not about ranking but about recognizing and accepting each other’s unique gifts. The leading concept, then, is not disabilities or special educational needs but the potential to develop and the corresponding need for assistance. Or, as Bavinck so eloquently put it, pedagogy must “joyfully and gratefully” proceed from what God gives each child (Bavinck 1928, p. 78).

According to the image of the body, all parts are needed—the hand and the foot no less than the eye. Decisive in this image is that everyone’s gifts contribute to what others are lacking. Consequently, we define a gift as a received quality that the student ultimately uses for the benefit of the other and for the greater whole. Not only are personal qualities, such as intelligence and creativity, implied but so are the ways of behaving toward others. In Pauline thought, the gifts (charismata) are in the service of building up the body of Christ. All parts of the body should thus move into the body of Christ. A Christian school pedagogy should not promote the ego-driven development of talents but development in the service of others and a greater whole. In the literature on inclusive education, the development of all talents is often stressed, while system theory approaches support the importance of communicating the participation of all individuals in the classroom system, like that expressed in the concept ‘gift’ (Rapp and Corral-Granados 2021).

3.6. Carrying the Load

Finally, I draw attention to the willingness to bear the other person’s burden. Serving others means carrying their burden with their own received qualities (Gal 6:2). Carrying a burden can be defined as consciously giving attention to all kinds of hardship, troubles, and needs (Schlatter 1963, p. 143), as well as moral deficits (Bonhoeffer 1964, p. 66). It is not a one-sided process in which the stronger assist the weaker, but a reciprocal process, in which every participant of the community potentially needs support (Schlatter 1963, p. 143). Accomplishing this is called fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal 6:2). Consequently, serving the other as Christ is not taking the upper position, as if someone with more qualities stands above the one who is weaker. On the contrary, it is taking the lower position (Phil 2:5,6), meaning refraining from any judgment, such as looking at the other as an object but taking into account everything that they carry with them in their created being (Bonhoeffer 1939, p. 86). This also has to do with the freedom left to the other person. As long as one puts a label on someone else, the other person is not free; rather, they are free when they feel accepted as they are, with all their possible weaknesses and gifts. The fellow human being has to learn to accept what is given to another. This can cause tensions because the other also challenges them through their otherness. Frictions, opposites and clashes can arise in the encounter (Bonhoeffer 1939, p. 37). Acceptance of the other is a general demand. The other is seen in the pleasantness that they have, not in what they do not have (2 Cor 8:12).

4. Schools and Classrooms as Hospitable Communities

In this section, I derive directives for dealing with differences from the hospitality ideal and related biblical principles.

From the individual to the community. Putting the community at the center invites a different way of looking at things, especially with regard to the types of goals that are chosen. International ranking systems look at the sum of individual learners’ outcomes (Sjøberg 2018). This reinforces the tendency in didactics to think entirely about personalized learning. When building a community is put first, group goals should receive more attention. In addition, envisioning the classroom community as a safe place implies a shift from primarily cognitive learning goals to social–emotional goals. However, working on the latter goals should not be instrumentalized but should be realized by working to create a safe and secure group climate. Stressing the importance of the community is supported by research showing that students achieve more in schools with healthy learning environments (MacNeil et al. 2009; Roffey 2013).

From instrumentalism to realism. Special needs should not be approached as a problem but as a reality and a pedagogical chance. By including students with special needs, the teacher shows something of the recognition and acceptance of the brokenness of existence. Concentrating on gifts and services implies that relatively little importance should be given to competition. Tests are seen as a necessary thermometer to support the teacher’s actions. They are useful insofar as they are a means of feedback or feedforward. It is possible to work with results at the class and school levels but only on the condition that it is conducted outside the sphere of competition. Therefore, there is a preference for a sober assessment climate, a limited presence of graphs, and a minimal administrative burden. Energy should not be lost by worrying about equality problems. Research has shown that strong students do not flourish less if much attention is paid to other students in the group. When education is well organized, everyone benefits (Prengel 2018; Sardes 2020).

From access to school climate. Hospitality is not, first and foremost, a question of whether there should be separate schools. It is a question of whether justice is carried out for the gifts and needs of all pupils. This can happen within regular and special schools. The preferred regular setting, as promoted in this article, does not alter the fact that special education is sometimes more appropriate than regular education (Zweers 2018).

From organization to pedagogy. In arranging inclusive, hospitable practices, many organizational issues are at the forefront. How do we organize education so that special needs are adequately addressed? When we think about inclusion from a pedagogical point of view, the first question we ask is how the teacher can act pedagogically in such a way that all students learn to serve with their gifts and see the needs of others. Therefore, the answer to the organizational question should not start with efficiency considerations by asking how a teacher can divide their limited time across all students with specific questions. The main pedagogical considerations concern the question of whether differences in the classroom provide an opportunity to practice dealing together with what at first glance seems deviant and troublesome. An obstacle met by a teacher is also experienced by the students as a problem. The teacher should not regard this as a barrier but use it as an opportunity for learning within the classroom system (Prengel 2018; Rapp and Corral-Granados 2021). The pivotal question, then, is the following: Does our school system create a setting in which students can practice looking with different eyes and carrying other people’s burdens? These burdens are acquired to practice patience, to endure the inhibiting factors caused by limitations, and to be creative in finding solutions.

From risk to trust. Instead of seeing differences as threats, the biblical image of the community leads us to see them as challenges. The hospitality ideals, as Anderson (2011) aptly formulated, “can best be realized in hospitable classrooms where diversity, rather than being seen as a threat to community, is welcomed, and where relationships between disabled and nondisabled students are consciously nurtured. A sense of belonging to the classroom community is made possible when the unique contribution of each person to the community’s well-being is valued” (p. 17; italics in the original text). Empirical research has shown that there is no need to fear a drop in level; specific attention to needs does not have a negative impact on the learning outcomes of “average” students (Ruijs 2017).

From students to staff. Whatever practices are chosen, hospitality will be cultivated only when the school climate as a whole includes visions and practices of togetherness (Roffey 2013). This applies not only to practices in which students learn to deal with other’s specific needs but also to leadership and staff. If a school team is seen as a community of relatively permanent hosts making room for the flourishing of temporary guests (the pupils), its members need to build a climate in which this can happen. Schools that are successful in dealing with many types of needs have a shared vision (Booth and Ainscow 2009). These schools do not start to reason from isolated classroom teaching practices but build practices of cooperation. Teachers must serve each other with their received qualities. Hospitality is thus an answer to the diversity not only between students but also between teachers. What is expected of students serving each other should be exemplified by teachers (Booth and Ainscow 2009). When teachers develop a sense of community, they begin to feel responsible for each other and for all students within the school (Ainscow and Sandill 2010; Ekins 2017). They create a community in which there is much openness within the team, as well as learning from and with each other. Togetherness also strengthens collective self-efficacy through a shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to deal with differences (Krammer et al. 2017).

5. Conclusions

The Christian school, as a training ground for what the Church of Christ stands for, can mirror itself on the ideals of hospitality and building a community. This is a challenge, given that current school practices are organized entirely in terms of more or less, strong or weak, and high or low. The answer to the question of how theological notions related to differences and needs can inspire the school climate, as formulated in the introduction, was provided by articulating different moves from current practices. I concluded that education that intends to be Christian inspires the need to move from the individual to the community, from instrumentalism to realism, from access to the school climate, from organization to pedagogy, and from risk to trust, as well as from moving the lens from pupils to staff. The elements taken from community and hospitality ideals and biblical principles pave the way for a working definition of hospitable education. I propose to define this as follows: hospitable education aims to create a welcoming and safe space for all students while considering gifts, as well as all kinds of hardship, troubles, and needs, in which a team of teachers, leaders, and other professionals, considering everyone’s strengths and vulnerabilities, serves all students with their particular gifts and needs in collective responsibility, such that all school staff can flourish and learn to serve others and the common good with their gifts.