The research question presented an educational challenge in which the pedagogical and research methodology was as important as the question itself. I was faced with a fundamental question during the planning phase of this project: Would I use modernist, instrumental methodologies to convince the team that certain ideas regarding the social Trinity are preferred to older models, or would I engage the team in a collaborative discovery process in which the outcome of the learning experience was unknown to me? I will articulate, in this section, how I framed the research project within a postfoundational, constructivist, participatory methodology by drawing upon the theoretical models found in Palmer, Kegan, Brookfield, and Hess.
Figure 3. Teacher-Centered Learning
Parker Palmer provides a helpful contrast between two pedagogical models that describe the shift from modernist to postfoundational methodologies and that help explain my choice of methodology for the DITB project. The first model is the teacher-centered model that is built upon the myth that knowledge is something that can be obtained through objective observation of a topic. The role of the teacher, in this model, is to acquire enough knowledge about the object of study to be considered an expert in that particular field. The teacher then turns away from the object of study and turns toward the students, who lack knowledge and are amateurs in the field. The students are empty vessels that must be filled up with knowledge by the expert until the students reach a level of knowledge when they, too, have the potential to be considered an expert.
The teacher-centered model is untenable for the missional leader for both epistemological and ethical reasons. Knowledge is hermeneutically situated within the relationality and perspective of the knower.  Therefore, according to this epistemological perspective, objective knowledge is a myth. The teacher-centered model is ethically untenable because it creates a power differential within the learning environment that is dangerous in two ways. First, it establishes a power hierarchy in which the teacher is considered essentially better and more powerful than the learner. Second, this hierarchical system promotes hegemony and colonizing tactics for the indoctrination of ideas and the perpetuation of command-and-control political systems rather than the freedom to explore new ideas and the ability to discern what God is doing in the world. It would be very difficult for the leader of a local congregation to utilize a teacher-centered methodology and seek a missional imagination in the church.
Figure 4. Subject-Centered Learning
Palmer offers an alternative model—the subject-centered model—that dispels the myth of objective knowledge and embraces postfoundationalist epistemology. The subject-centered model recognizes that any given topic is, what Palmer calls, the “great thing” around which we gather. It is both an object and a subject. It is an object in that it is separate from the learner and can be observed. However, it is also a subject in that the topic brings something to the learner that invites the learner into dialogue. The subject-centered model situates both the learner and the teacher into a more democratic space than the teacher-centered model. Hess suggests that the teacher, in this model, is someone who is simply a little further down the road than the others in the circle in regard to the “great thing” around which they are gathered. Someone who is new to the great thing might have something equally important to contribute.
This model of teaching and learning suggests that knowledge is a dynamic, relational process, rather than a static, isolated quantity. It suggests that the “great thing” in the middle of the diagram might be a script for our participation in the construction of knowledge, as compared to the first model, where knowledge is something isolated from most people, and dimply transferred through the mediation of a teacher.
This is not to deny the need for leadership, however, or the power differential that inherently exists between the teacher and the student. Palmer argues that teaching is the act of creating a space in which obedience to truth can be practiced. The teacher must design a space that facilitates, or “holds” the possibility for subject-centered learning to occur.
It is important to note the language of figure 3. The students that form the circle around the subject are no longer labeled “amateur,” nor are they labeled “student” or “learner.” They are called “knower.” This is significant for Palmer and has theological implications. Palmer asserts that education is a deeply spiritual process that goes far beyond the acquisition of knowledge, but is the process of knowing in the same way that we are known. We know in the context of relatedness, and ultimately, our relatedness exists in our relatedness to God. In essence, learning is a form of prayerful meditation in which we experience the other, and in so knowing, are more fully known.
It was important for the DITB project that I adopt a subject-centered model for the RT. Given my position as a teaching pastor and a researcher, and given the dominance of teacher-centered methods in the church and the educational systems in which the RT was raised, it was only natural that the RT expected me to present the social Trinity in a lecture-style manner. I had to break this expectation. The “great thing” around which we gathered in the DITB project was the intersection of the Trinity, spiritual formation, and the suburban context. I, as the teacher, brought these topics into conversation and placed that conversation in the center of the group. The RT gathered around it and we entered into a multifaceted, relational interaction with it and with each other. I would argue that this became a “script” for Trinitarian praxis in the construction of knowledge in this project.
The methodologies chosen for the DITB project draw heavily upon Robert Kegan’s theories of what it means to be human and how humans develop. The uniqueness of Kegan’s theory is that it brings together existentialist psychology with developmental psychology and creates a third way that he calls a “constructive-developmental” tradition that attends to the development of the activity of meaning-constructing. Kegan asserts that human beings are not “beings,” but that the human being is an activity. He says, “It is not about the doing which a human does: it is about the doing that a human is.” The activity of being human is the process of making meaning out of experiential data in community. We are relational beings that continually interact in our physical and social environment and make meaning out of those interactions as we develop throughout the course of our lives.
Kegan observes that neuro-typical humans have the potential to evolve through five basic orders of consciousness that alter the subject/object relationship as it pertains to making meaning. Each order is like a filter, or a set of lenses through which the individual makes sense out of—or “orders”—the experiential data. The filter is part of the subject/observer that influences how the object is perceived and understood. The filter is not perceived in itself, but is the ubiquitous lens that colors the data. As the individual evolves into the next order, she moves outside of the previous filter, and is able to observe the previous filter as a new object. This new order of consciousness is, in itself, a new filter that alters her positionality as a subject/observer and allows her to perceive the previous filter and make dramatically different forms of meaning than was previously possible. The relationship between these five orders is like the relationship between a point, a line, a plane, a sphere, and a tesseract. Each one is part of, but beyond the previous order. Kegan has also observed that most neuro-typical humans reach the third order of consciousness during adolescence and stay there for the rest of their lives.
It was commonly believed, prior to the 1980s, that all significant cognitive development ceased in late adolescence. In other words, a person’s ability to change the way they think stops at the onset of adulthood. It was believed that the only type of change that an adult can expect to experience is technical change. They cannot change the way they learn or the way they perceive the world. Kegan’s research seriously challenges this understanding of human development.
Kegan discovered two more orders of consciousness through which humans can move as adults. There is an important distinction between the first three orders and the last two orders. The first three orders evolve naturally in the neuro-typical child, and most neuro-typical humans begin adulthood functioning at a third order of consciousness. Unlike child development, however, not every adult will automatically progress to fourth and fifth order consciousness.
The following is a brief description of third, fourth, and fifth order consciousness. Kegan uses historical periods in Western history as a metaphor to describe these orders:
Third Order. Kegan describes the third-order consciousness as traditionalism. It is like the time in medieval Europe when the average citizen was born, lived, and died within the same village. Each person knew his or her place in society and knew the rules of that society. The world was comprised of “right” and “wrong” and each person had the choice to either comply with society or to rebel against it. The distinctive feature of this order of consciousness is that the rules of society are the filter through which the individual perceives and makes meaning out of all reality. There are no other societal systems from which to choose, there is only “the way things are.” The person operating from third-order consciousness views all other people through his or her own filter and judges them according to that system. It is important to note that this judgment is not born out of bigotry, but out of the intrinsic belief that there is actually only one way to view the world.
Fourth Order. Kegan uses the modern era to describe fourth-order consciousness. The twentieth century has brought the modern person into constant contact with multiple cultures and a never-ending stream of data. This barrage of data has caused us, in the modern era, to feel “In Over Our Heads” and unable to cope with competing cultural perspectives and the relationships which are constituted by those competing cultural dynamics. The person in third-order consciousness, when faced with another cultural system different from her own, naturally creates us and them boundaries, declaring her us to be the correct way of perceiving the world and the other’s them to be wrong. These harsh boundaries have contributed to violence and bloodshed throughout the centuries of cultural interaction. The individual who evolves into fourth-order consciousness transcends the third-order filter and perceives that her system is one system among many. She then becomes an objective observer of systems. She is a free agent in the world, able to negotiate between systems, voluntarily interacting and valuing other systems. This consciousness allows an individual to pursue peaceful transactions with an “other” and to manage modern, plural, realities.
Fifth Order. Kegan uses the emergence of Western culture into the postmodern era as a way to describe fifth-order consciousness as it emerges from fourth-order thinking. There is a blessing and a curse in fourth-order consciousness. The blessing is that an individual is able to negotiate peaceful transactions between multiple systems. The curse, however, is that an individual cannot see beyond isolation, atomism, a monadist perspective on the world, where while it is possible to observe that there are multiple systems, it is not yet possible to see how they interpenetrate and “make each other up.” This isolation can lead to feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and nihilism.
Fourth-order consciousness has inherent flaws. First of all, it is impossible for an individual to stand outside of her own system and observe it objectively. She is part of the system, and her part of the system is the lens through which she observes. Objectivity is a myth and—in Gadamerian terms—we all bring our own horizon to the exchange. Secondly, not only is it impossible for the individual to stand outside her own system, it is also impossible to be completely whole as an atomistic monad. Fifth-order consciousness, in contrast to this isolationist tendency, begins to realize that the Other is not a completely separate monad with whom one can have voluntary interchange, but, rather, the relationship with the Other is necessary for constituting ones own self. All things in the universe are interwoven and mutually constitutive. In other words, we need each other in order to survive. Kegan argues that it is only when humans reach fifth-order consciousness that we can begin to understand that there are viable, peaceful alternatives to violent conflicts when negotiating significant political and ideological differences between individuals and cultures. These peaceful alternatives to violence will be more likely to lead to the mutual survival of the species than the more combative tendencies of third and fourth-order thinkers.
Kegan argues that human beings can actually learn and develop, with support, into fourth and fifth-order consciousness. He has discovered that, through reflective personal and communal critique, an individual can move past blind spots and begin to practice thinking differently, thus perceiving reality from a fourth or fifth order consciousness.
Kegan’s theory is an important framework for the DITB project for three reasons. First, I would argue that Kegan’s theory describes relational ontology and provides helpful language to support my critique of substance ontology. His proposal that human being is the activity of making meaning in community aptly describes the social/relational/entangled Trinitarian essence of life that I will explore in the next chapter.
The second reason Kegan’s theory is important for the DITB process has to do with spiritual formation. The process of moving from one order of consciousness to the next is a form of self-transcendence that correlates with Schneider’s definition of spirituality and the purpose for spiritual formation that I will introduce in the next section. Kegan suggests that, with proper support from a caring community, the individual can overcome her immunity to change and progress to the next order of consciousness. Self-transcendence does not happen automatically and must begin with a form of “conversion” or “awareness” experience that is followed by intentionality. This process is in step with the Vision, Intention, and Means of Dallas Willard that I will also introduce in the next section.
Kegan’s discussion of the fifth-order of consciousness also offers practical reasons why it is necessary for the suburban Christian to be concerned with spiritual formation. Kegan argues that, unless more humans move into fifth-order consciousness, our current human condition of escalating violence at a global level will lead to self-annihilation. This motivation for spiritual formation may be more accessible to the typical suburbanite than mere personal piety, or the fear of Hell and the hope for Heaven in the afterlife.
The third reason Kegan’s theory is important for the DITB project has to do with the purpose of the missional church. Kegan argues that the activity of human being is meaning-making. We are not empty vessels that come to church to be filled with knowledge from the teacher-centered ministry of the Word. We are not isolated, atomistic individual substances that randomly float through space in voluntary transactions. We are humans-beings-making-meaning-together. I would suggest that the missional leader is called to structure spaces in which humans can be together to be human. The act of engaging the research team in participatory, communicative action demonstrated the missional church’s vocation to invite people into being fully human as we make sense out of the Trinitarian life together.
Stephen Brookfield’s pedagogical theories also form an important framework for the DITB project, and help to explain why I structured the project as a participatory action research team. Brookfield asserts that the facilitation of adult learning is not the smooth voyage along a storm-free river of self-actualization, but is a “transactional drama in which personalities, philosophies, and priorities of the facilitators and the participants interact continuously to influence the nature, direction, and form” of the learning process. Brookfield critiques previous attempts at andragogy, citing that it is based upon modernist notions of top-down models of learning. These older models are what Paulo Freire calls banking models in which the student is seen as an empty vessel and the teacher pours objective knowledge into the bank of the student’s open mind. The andragogy model, Brookfield contends, supports oppressive systems that perpetuate the hegemony of Imperial regimes.
Brookfield’s pedagogical theory draws from four theoretical streams: ideology critique, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, analytic philosophy and logic, and pragmatist constructivism. This fusion, which he calls critical pragmatism,
is one that accepts the essential accuracy and usefulness of the reading of society embedded within ideology critique. It also allies itself with the struggle to create a world in which one’s race, class, and gender do not frame the limits within which one can experience life. However, it is also skeptical of any claims to foundationalism or essentialism, that is, to the belief that there is one, and only one, way to conceive of and create such a society.
He believes that adult learning should empower the student to become critically reflective of the dominant culture, thus able to communicatively construct alternate modes of being and doing that will strive for equity and justice. The adult learner brings as much to the learning environment as the instructor. It is the instructor’s job to structure and structure environments in which the students can engage in communicative rationality.
Brookfield’s pedagogical methodologies are especially important for the suburban context in which the DITB project took place. This may seem ironic at first, since most of the theoretical underpinnings of his theory come from Marxist and/or liberation-of-the-oppressed perspectives. His theory is important for this research on two levels. First, the people in the RT are situated within the privileged, white, suburban class that benefits directly from capitalism. There is an intrinsic blindness to this social position that needs a pedagogical methodology that will not perpetuate the hegemony, but will unmask it as a destructive power. Brookfield says that,
Critical teaching begins with developing students’ powers of critical thinking so that they can critique the interlocking systems of oppression embedded in contemporary society. Informed by a critical theory perspective, students learn to see that capitalism, bureaucratic rationality, disciplinary power, automaton conformity, one-dimensional thought, and repressive tolerance all combine to exert a powerful ideological sway aimed to ensure the current system stays intact. Critical thinking in this vein is the educational implementation of ideology critique; the deliberate attempt to penetrate the ideological obfuscation that ensures that massive social inequality is accepted by the majority as the natural state of affairs. Adults who learn to conduct this kind of critique are exercising true reason, that is, reason applied to asking universal questions about how we should live.
Is this not the same question that the missional leader desires to lead the church into asking? As Christians, we pray each week that God’s kingdom may come, that God’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. I invited the RT to come together to dream new dreams regarding spiritual formation in the suburbs. It was my desire to echo the questions that Brookfield suggests are the purpose of his theory:
What kind of societal organization will help people treat each other fairly and compassionately? How can we redesign work so that it encourages the expression of human creativity?
The second reason Brookfield’s theory is important for the DITB project is his emphasis and implementation of praxis.
[his pedagogical theory] centers on the need for educational activity to engage the learner in a continuous and alternating process of investigation and exploration, followed by action grounded in this exploration, followed by reflection on this action, followed by further investigation and exploration, followed by further action, and so on.
The praxis cycle is at the heart of participatory action research. I structured the DITB project around the cycle, both at the macro and micro level. The macro level was organized around three phases. The first phase drew the RT together to interact, challenge their previous thinking, collaborate new ideas, and devise a plan of action. The second phase dispersed the team into the field to act out their plans. The third phase regrouped the team to make meaning out of the action. The desire was that this third phase would launch the team into further action, beyond the end of the project, based upon the reflective process. This macro process reflected the reflection-action-reflection praxis cycle.
The micro level also supported the praxis cycle. Each team session allowed space for communicative action in the form of structured dialogue in multiple forms; dyads, triads, and small groups; quiet space for personal journaling; and large group discussion. Furthermore, the RT was encouraged to interact on the website discussion forum throughout the full course of the project. The action and communicative reflection created the tension necessary for the praxis Brookfield suggests.
Mary Hess’s work with digital media and religious education provides a strong framework for both the use of digital media and the use of participatory action research methodology in the DITB research project. Digital media played a big part in the DITB project. First, I established a private online discussion forum for the RT to interact with each other at any time. Second, I created animated videos to communicate the initial information regarding the social Trinity. I showed the videos to the RT during session three, but the videos were also posted on YouTube and on the project website prior to the meeting. This allowed the RT unlimited access to the videos. Third, the RT members were invited to create personal journals throughout the course of the project and either post them to the discussion forum or email them directly to me. Finally, I continually blogged about my ongoing research and invited the RT to interact with the blog via comments, discussion forums, and/or personal emails.
Hess argues that creating space for interactive digital media, like I described above, is reflective of the Trinitarian relationality that I have argued for in this project. Hess also argues that digital technologies help religious educators to: (1) provide a richer, more multiply intelligent environment within which to learn; (2) provide more opportunities for real collaboration; (3) give pastoral leaders a better angle of vision on the challenges their congregations are facing and the specific assumptions with which they enter learning; (4) provide better access to primary-source materials, and (5) overcome constraints of geography and time.
Hess has also provided the framework for why participatory action research was not simply a stylistic choice on my part for pursuing this academic project, but was inherently necessary for the proper pursuit of the question. Hess argues that all knowledge is situated, contextual, and communicatively constructed knowledge, and therefore, any attempt to research a question within the realm of religious education must be pursued within the context of a contextually situated people. The purpose of this kind of research project is to “re” “search;” to search again and reexamine previously held beliefs and to collaboratively re-construct new meaning through the process of the communicative action that can best be structured within a participatory action research project.
The DITB research question seeks to explore the impact of the social Trinity within suburban ELCA congregations. This question can only be asked and answered by suburban ELCA people. Some might argue that the limited scope of this project renders its findings unhelpful for the general use of the church at large. Hess argues that such positivist notions of knowledge are not the only—and perhaps not even the best—way to describe the universe. She further argues—drawing from feminist theology—that
research methods that refused to ‘own their partiality’ would be actively discouraged. The pursuit of universal truths would become the pursuit of highly specific truths that yet have the ability to speak to myriad difference…It is precisely this kind of research, that actively owns its commitments and is explicitly situated within a specific community, that I believe is most useful for religious educators.
The DITB project explored the suburban ELCA congregation. The majority of people in the suburban context have access to the internet and various interactive digital media. A research project within the context of religious education for the purpose of the missional church necessitates a space that promotes communicative rationality. Given these facts, it was an obvious choice to structure the project as a participatory action research project.
 Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, 10th anniversary ed. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007), 100.
 I will argue this point in chapter three.
 I will argue in the Word of God frame and the missional frame that the missional leader seeks to facilitate spaces in which the local congregation can dwell in the Word and in the World in order to listen and to discern what God is doing in the world and to join God in the missio dei. A teacher-centered hierarchical system would be toxic to this goal.
 Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, 102.
 Palmer does not necessarily identify it is postfoundationalist. This is a term that I will introduce below as my preferred moniker for our current post/late-modern cultural and epistemological milieu.
 Mary E. Hess, Engaging Technology in Theological Education: All That We Can’t Leave Behind, Communication, Culture, and Religion Series (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 7.
 Parker J. Palmer, To Know as We Are Known: Education as a Spiritual Journey, 1st HarperCollins pbk ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).
 Ibid., 11.
 Hess, Engaging Technology in Theological Education: All That We Can’t Leave Behind, 4ff.
 Another helpful model is Communicative Theology in which the experience of God happens in the communicative action between the I, IT, WE, and GLOBE. Matthias Hilberath Bernd Jochen Scharer, The Practice of Communicative Theology: Introduction to a New Theological Culture (New York: Crossroad Pub. CO, 2008).
 Robert Kegan, The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 4.
 Ibid., 8.
 I created an animation to help visualize the evolution through the five orders. http://www.deepintheburbs.com/in-over-our-heads-by-robert-kegan/ (accessed February 12, 2015)
 Robert Kegan, In over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).
 See Gadamer, Truth and Method. I will explore this further in the next chapter.
 This is, in my opinion, a psychological expression of relational ontology that I will explore in chapter three.
 Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock Potential in Yourself and Your Organization, Leadership for the Common Good (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009).
 Western Christianity has been dominated by the Platonic ideal of substance ontology, in which all things can be reduced to a simple, perfect form that has a fundamentally distinct substance from that which is different from it. e.g. human substance is distinct from animal substance which is distinct from divine substance. This creates an ontological gap between things that may or may not be passable. Relational ontology, on the other hand, begins with the relationality of all things as constitutive of individual particulates. I will expound upon this point in the next chapter.
 Here I understand the self to be the filter through which the individual makes meaning in any particular order. The filter is a socially constructed self that orders experiential data. It may be helpful—although beyond the scope of this paper—to discuss the relationship between the social me and the I that George Herbert Mead suggests. When the I becomes aware of the me—the filter of the order in which the self is operating—it can, through supportive, reflective, communicative action, transcend that self and become a “new self” that has a broader perspective. This is, I would suggest, spiritual formation. See George Herbert Mead and Charles W. Morris, Mind, Self & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (Chicago, Ill.,: The University of Chicago press, 1934).
 Walter Conn also bases his definition of conversion upon human developmental models. He says, “In turning life and love upside down, however, religious conversion does not destroy the authentic moral autonomy of personal responsibility. Indeed, the criterion of both religious conversion and the development of personal autonomy is self-transcendence. Justice, universalizing faith, generativity, and interindividual intimacy all insist on mutuality as the norm of authentic autonomy. Only the inauthentic notions of absolute autonomy and self-fulfillment are contradicted by the self-transcending love and surrender of religious conversion. Christian religious conversion is not the antithesis but the completion of personal development toward self-transcending autonomy.” Walter E. Conn, Christian Conversion: A Developmental Interpretation of Autonomy and Surrender (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 268.
 Cf. Groome’s agent-subjects-in-relation. Thomas H. Groome, Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry: The Way of Shared Praxis, 1st ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 9.
 Stephen Brookfield, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices, 1st ed., The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986), vii-viii.
 A term made popular by Malcolm Knowles. See Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed. (Boston: Elsevier, 2011).
 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. (New York: Continuum, 2000). See also the previous discussion of Parker Palmer’s model of teacher-centered vs. subject-centered learning. Figures 3 and 4.
 Stephen Brookfield, The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and Teaching, 1st ed. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 16-17.
 Ibid., 350.
 Brookfield, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices, 15-16.
 View the videos at the Deep in the Burbs website, “The Trinity Frame”. http://www.deepintheburbs.com/theoretical-frames/trinity/ (accessed February 12, 2015)
 It is interesting to note how one particular theological concept grew through the communicative action of blogging. I began the project by presenting the social Trinity. That was the language used for the animations that I created at the beginning of the project. However, as I progressed with my research I grew less comfortable with the language of social Trinity and more aligned with the language of relational Trinity or the entangled Trinity. I did not necessarily insert this shift into the RT sessions, but I wrote freely about it on the blog. Several of the RT members engaged me in constructive—and sometimes resistant—dialogue around this new language. It became evident in the final team sessions that the language of entangled Trinity had woven its way into the RT. See the commentary on Phil’s story in chapter seven.
 I make an important distinctive in this statement: interactive digital media. Not all media is conducive to the type of collaborative space that Hess is lauding. There has been a dramatic shift in media technology during the twentieth century. Print, radio, and television are media that are more like the trucking industry that ships information one direction. This type of media has been used to perpetuate the teacher-centered model of learning. Hess argues that the interactive digital media of the Internet creates the communicative spaces needed for subject-centered learning, and, I would argue, for Trinitarian praxis. See Mary E. Hess, “Pedagogy and Theology in Cyberspace: All That We Cant Leave Behind,” Teaching Theology & Religion 5, no. 1 (2002); Peter G. Horsfield, Mary E. Hess, and Adán M. Medrano, eds., Belief in Media: Cultural Perspectives on Media and Christianity (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004).
 Mary E. Hess, “What Difference Does It Make? E-Learning and Faith Community,” Word & World 30, no. 3 (2010): 284. See also Hess, Engaging Technology in Theological Education: All That We Can’t Leave Behind.
 Hess, “What Difference Does It Make? E-Learning and Faith Community,” 289.
 See my discussion of postfoundationalism in chapter three.
 Mary E. Hess, “Collaborating with People to Study “the Popular”: Implementing Participatory Action Research Strategies in Religious Education,” Religious Education 96, no. 3 (2001): 284.
 Mary E. Hess, “Collaborating with People to Study “the Popular”: Implementing Participatory Action Research Strategies in Religious Education,” Religious Education 96, no. 3 (2001): 279.
 It is important to note that, while most suburban citizens in the context of this project have access to interactive digital media, not all suburbanites embrace digital media. Some of the RT members were discouraged and intimidated by the use of digital media. I will discuss this further in the final chapter. Further, it is important to note the digital divide that exists between the socio-economic classes. Not everyone in society has free access to digital media. Therefore, digital media cannot be understood as the ultimate answer to democratic, emancipatory pedagogy. It is, within particular contexts, emancipatory and communicative, however, and must be embraced as such by religious educators.