Posts Tagged ‘christian worldview’

Reformed Thinkers on Education: Nicholas Wolterstorff

Dear Reader,

This post is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed Christian philosophy theology of education. Find all the posts here.

I am currently in the midst of a series within a series in which I look at some modern reformed thinkers on education, The introductory post to this mini-series is here.

Lest you think I am just a crank, I found a “reformed thinker” whose ideas I think. I introduced you last time to a volume edited by Donald Oppewal, Voices from the Past: Reformed Educators (Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 1997). This volume contains selected articles on education. Today’s thinker, Nicholas Wolterstorff, is one of these. Wolterstorff was another philosophy professor at Calvin College. He has two articles in the volume: “Curriculum: By What Standard?” (1966) and “Looking into the Eighties” (1978). The latter was a speech given looks at the future of Christian education. The former discusses specifics of how to form a curriculum.

In “Looking to the Eighties” Wolterstorff asks “Is it possible to conduct alternative Christian education in a non-isolationist setting?” (p. 112). I began this series with some brief discussion (borrowed from Peter Ton who got them from Vried) of the spectrum of ideas about education. One of the biggest of these is the dichotomy between education as primarily an intellectual enterprise on one end and the need for practical, life applications on the other. Among authors we have looked at, we saw that Gordon Clark defined education as intellectualistic but W.H. Jellema took the more practical view. Wolterstorff is also in the latter category. He argues that “Christian education is to imbue the child with a Christian world and life view” and that this view must not be purely intellectual. Education is not all about thinking but “the goal of Christian education is to shape a way of living” (p. 113).

Wolterstorff then makes an assertion: “every society and community educates its members for life in that community” (p. 114). This is a definition we have seen previously when we looked at Christopher Dawson’s The Crisis of Western Education. Wolterstorff concludes fro this that we must indeed have our own alternative schools because we have an alternative community. How we do so in a way which does not totally reject or isolate us from the culture is the problem he seeks to address.

Before getting there, Wolterstorff takes a detour to look at how we learn how to act. He has already established that education should shape not just our thinking but our actions so how do we do that? He refers to scientific studies to show that children copy what they see others do. If their role models act one way and speak another, they also will become hypocrites, acting as they see others act and speaking as they see them speak (p. 116). If they have diverse role models, there is no way to predict whom they will model themselves after. To top it off, digital models (those on TV or the internet, though he didn’t know the internet) are just as effective as live ones. And this is the crux of the problem because in today’s world — even more than Wolterstorff could have imagined — children are surrounded by these bad influences. And even the good influences which they hopefully get at home and school and church are ultimately imperfect people who will not always represent the best. Wolterstorff rejects the Amish solution, making a truly alternative community with no interaction with the rest of the world, but then returns to his base question: how do we do it?

The first answer he gives is to be a community of love. Though we are imperfect, sinful people, we need to give as authentic and loving a community as we can. Beyond this, we need to give reasons for acting the way we do. Relying once again on studies, he argues that children will respond better to those who give reasons for their actions. The talking heads on our screens do not, but we can and so we can win the battle (p. 118). On a practical level, this means that our curricula need to allow us to discuss real issues and how Christians have, historically, reacted to them and we should react to them (p. 119).

I like most of what Wolterstorff says here. His main arguments come from general revelation, i.e. scientific studies, but they do not contradict Scripture and they do seem to contribute to our understanding in a helpful way. As Paul says in Corinthians, “Bad company ruins good morals” (I Cor. 15:33; ESV). I do think we could add a detail — though we are indeed sinful and therefore imperfect role models ourselves, the work of the Holy Spirit in our children’s lives can cover a lot. It is not entirely up to us to set a good example; God knows we cannot do that. And then sometimes seeing adults sin and repent is a more powerful witness than just seeing us be as perfect as we can all the time (which is not an argument to sin on purpose of course; Rom. 6:1-2).

In his other article, “Curriculum: By What Standard?” Wolterstorff presents some propositions for establishing a curriculum. His assumption again is that we are looking at Christian schools. I will say as I did when we looked at Jellema, that we need also to include homeschooling in our line if sight, but it would be anachronistic to ask them to do so as they wrote before the modern homeschooling movement took off.

Once again, Wolterstorff begins with an assertion: “education is inescapable” (p. 97). We are all learning all the time. The question is not if we will learn but what we will learn. This is where discernment comes in; we must be deliberate and selective in what we learn or we will learn whatever comes across our path which will likely not be good.  This is a very Charlotte Mason thing to say and, though I have in many ways moved away from her philosophy, it is one I agree with. Though he doesn’t use the language, Wolterstorff adds an idea from economics: opportunity costs. We cannot learn everything, not even everything good, so we must choose between available options. Too often teachers use bad criteria when choosing what to teach. They may just follow what they themselves were taught and not really choose at all. Or they may follow their own tastes. Wolterstorff argues that education “must always have its face towards the student. It must answer to his needs” (p. 99).

Here we see another dichotomy that we saw when looking at approaches to homeschooling: child-led on one side versus parent/teacher-led on the other. Those who, like Wolterstorff, take a more child-centered approach, do so, as he does, because they have a high view of the personhood of the child.

Wolterstorff then asks another important question: which life are we preparing the student for, his present one or his future one? (p. 100). I love this question. (It is an issue we have touched on before. See this post.) I also like his answer which is that both lives are in view. We are preparing the child for what will come in his life but he is also a child of God right now. As Wolterstorff says, “The child is not merely a lump of clay . . . For in the Christian view, the child is already a person, demanding love and respect” (pp. 100-101). Our curriculum must equip the child for both his present life and his future service.

Wolterstorff goes on to give four principles for such a curriculum. The first is that man is both body and soul and that we must not neglect the physical by concentrating only on the intellectual. The practical application is that physical education should be part of the curriculum of Christian schools. I do not disagree with him here, but I did have a slightly different take. In developing my own philosophy of education, I defined education as focusing on the mind. This is a definition and was not meant to deny that we must also develop the body, and, I would add, the emotions and the spirit. I also agree that these things, though we speak of them as distinct, are not really separate but all work together. I do not think we are actually on different pages here, however, but only that we are defining terms differently.

Wolterstorff’s second principle is that the Christian life is one of faith, faith not in a set of propositions but in a Person. His practical application is that our curriculum needs to emphasize “the Christian approach to contemporary social issues” and “how the diverse responses of men to God become articulated in their cultural endeavors” (p. 105).

Thirdly, Wolterstorff says that we live in a community. His emphasis here is that we each have a role to play in that community. We cannot all be hands, as the apostle said (1 Cor. 12:15). So we must equip each child to fulfill his unique role. It cannot be a cookie-cutter curriculum. Nor should we exalt certain professions above others.

While we are in a Christian community, we are also in a wider society. Our curriculum should enable us to understand that society. With proper guidance, “Hemingway and Sartre must be read, Stravinsky and jazz must be heard, Picasso and Dubuffet must be viewed” (p. 108).

Lastly, Wolterstorff argues that we must fulfill the dominion that was given us in Genesis 1. He sees, or at least discusses this, as primarily a cultural dominion: “The life of the redeemed is a life of serving God in the whole range of cultural tasks. Not Christ or culture. Not even Christ and culture. Christ through culture is what we must seek” (p. 109). He goes on to say that “Mathematics and natural science belong in the curriculum of the Christian school as surely as do theology and moral instruction” (p. 110). In contrast to Jellema who exalted the art critic over the artist, Wolterstorff argues for creativity. Artistic creativity but also creativity in thought. Students must experiment and argue.

Wolterstorff never refers to the Bible in either of his articles yet his thinking is clearly biblical. Though his appeals are to scientific studies or logic, he often ends up in the same places I have in my own thinking. We do define things a bit differently, but I like a lot of what he has to say. I am particularly struck by his point that we do not all play the same role therefore we should not all have exactly the same education. I think there is a sound biblical basis for this doctrine. Though I am also probably more on the child-led end of the spectrum, I am slightly uncomfortable with some of the things he says. I could see that these things may be taken too far. We must still hold to truth over personal preferences. But some of this difference may be in our experience; I doubt he was surrouded by unschoolers . Overall, I am pleased with Wolterstorff. I have gleaned a couple of new insights which I hope to apply.

Nebby

 

Reformed Thinkers on Education: W.H. Jellema

Dear Reader,

This post is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed Christian philosophy theology of education. Find all the posts here.

I am currently in the midst of a series within a series in which I look at some modern reformed thinkers on education. The introductory post to this mini-series is here.

A number of the thinkers we will consider are represented in Voices from the Past: Reformed Educators (Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 1997), a volume edited by Donald Oppewal. The first of these is William Harry Jellema who worked in the 1950s as a philosophy professor at Calvin College among other positions. Two of his essays are included in Oppewal’s volume. The first, “The Curriculum in a Liberal Arts College,” addresses specific decisions that Calvin College faced at the time with regard to revamping their curriculum. The second, “The Christian School a Prerequisite for and an Outgrowth of the Calvinistic World and Life View,” argues for Christian schools. Because the latter is more general, I will begin with it.

The thrust of “The Christian School . . . ” is contained in its title — Jellema argues the need for distinctly Christian schools. Though this rankles me a little as a homeschooler, I realize that he was writing in the 1950s when the modern homeschooling movement had really not begun so I will give him a pass and assume that this option was just not on his radar.

Jellema spends considerable time arguing for something that I have often said on this blog — ideas have consequences. In his words, our “life views” have practical “outgrowths” (p. 48). There are probably people who would contest this position, but I am not one of them nor do I suspect most of you are so we will not dwell on it overly much. Jellema’s argument is a philosophical one rather than a biblical one though I think this would be an easy point to argue from the Scriptures which ask of us not just faith but obedience. In the course of making his argument, Jellema shows that we are “rational moral” beings (p. 50) and that we embody biological, social, and religious impulses, all of which impact our actions (p. 53).

Jellema goes on to argue that, given that our beliefs have practical consequences, Calvinism will result in the need for Christian schools. This is a multi-stage argument. First he argues for the comprehensiveness of our worldview — that “the God who revealed himself in the Christ of the Scriptures” is “the source of ultimate principles for our world and life view . . . [S]uch a world and life view rooted in the Christian faith will issue in Christian education” (p. 56). But Calvinism “need not create its own social instrument” so he goes on to argue that we need to establish schools to provide this education.

His primary argument on this point is again one that we have seen before and boils down to the idea that there are no uninterpreted facts. Calvinism insists, he says, that “God is not only the object in a narrower sense of religious faith and devotion but is also the ground and end of all existence and truth and value” (p. 57). It is not sufficient to allow secular public schools to teach facts and to allow the church or home to provide religious instruction; the two must be merged and therefore a Christian institution is necessary to do the job.

Though in this essay Jellema does not say too much about the nature of education in the Christian schools he envisions, he does towards the end hint at a purpose for education:

” . . . only in the light of that view can my bits of knowledge become intelligible. And in the sphere of morality and character building this conviction means that my every experience of worth strengthens and deepens my appreciation of and loyalty to God . . . The cutting edge of our view is that intellectual or moral growth and the religious life are in each specific instance and at that moment inseparable . . . ” (pp. 57-8)

In other words, knowledge only makes sense in the light of our beliefs and this intelligible knowldge serves to point us to God so that we give Him glory and grow in Him.

Though I take issue with the idea that we need schools specifically, I am largely in agreement with Jellema thus far. His other article, “The Curriculum in a Liberal Arts College,” leaves me a little more puzzled. As I said above, he is here arguing for specific changes in the curriculum and course requirements at Calvin College. I am not so much interested in the particulars but along the way he makes some general statements about education.

“Education is for wisdom” (p. 5), Jellema tells us. If this is meant as a definition, I am willing to accept it as such. But Jellema goes on to define wisdom saying it “consists very simply in the ability so to use nature as to achieve position in a society devoted to mastery over nature” (p. 5). Though wisdom is a topic covered at length in the pages of the Bible, this is no biblical argument nor is there  any appeal to the Scriptures. Jellema seems to be saying that our goal is mastery over nature — an argument which could certainly be substantiated by Genesis 1 — but he also says that nature shapes us, that our minds are molded by the patterns in nature. Though we know that God is revealed by His creation, we also know that creation was changed by the fall of man. There is no discernment here, no recognition that not all we find in nature as it now is would be worth emulating. He repeatedly calls this a “new idea of wisdom” (p. 15, 25) which I find quite disturbing given that wisdom is such a deeply-rooted biblical concept. It is not something that it seems we should have a “new” concept of.

Jellema’s overall argument in this essay is for a Christian liberal arts education. The liberal arts, he says, deal with the man as an individual and as a whole (pp. 16, 27). They educate the intellectual for the sake of the moral.  He implies that the ultimate goal of such an education is to fit us to discharge our moral responsibilities (p.16). Though a liberal arts education covers many subjects, he argues against a fragmented approach — a little here, a little there — and for an approach that looks to unifying principles across subjects. He speaks specifically of three or four minds, that is, ways of thinking. The Christian mind, which is associated with the Middle Ages, is primary but one also should learn the ancient and modern minds (pp. 21-22, 31). These minds are learned through the reading of their literature and also the learning of their languages. It is not enough to read the classics in translation but one should also learn Greek and Latin (p. 25).

I like some of the specifics here. I agree that we are much better equipped to understand someone when we learn their langauge (I argued as much in this post). I also like the idea of a broader more unifying perspective rather than a smattering of knowledge from a range of fields. I am a little confused by the minds thing. It may be true but I would like to see more on why these three distinct minds are valuable to know and understand. There is certainly Christian thought and non-Christian, but, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun. I am not so convinced that the ancient and modern are really all that different. There is also the matter of other minds. Jellema mentions a couple of times that we should learn the occidental (i.e. western) minds.  Perhaps the world has changed since his day; I am not sure we can so limit ourselves. Eastern philosophies pervade our culture.

The biggest issue I have with Jellema, however, is this idea of wisdom that he advances. I cannot get over a reformed thinker advancing a “new” idea of wisdom without any reference to the Scriptures. In the first article we discussed, Jellema hints at quite a good goal for education — it causes us to glorify God and it transforms us. I would have liked to see him pursue that train of thought rather than the “new wisdom.”

Nebby

Reformed Thinkers on Education: Introduction

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

Though I have been blogging for a while on a reformed Christian approach to education and slowly developing my own philosophy of education, I am realizing that there is a body of material I have not interacted with and should.

I have come to this enterprise with my own particular bent, coming from  homeschooling and having used Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education. Most of these other authors come from Christian schools often with a classical bent, or at least influenced more by the Christian classical movement. My goal over the next months is to read and distill what they have written.

I have a few convictions that I come into this enterprise with. One, born of my readings in various approaches to homeschooling, is that every philosophy of education says something about the nature of man and his ultimate purpose. I believe that the Bible is the “only infallible rule for faith and life.” The wording is from my  denomination’s membership vows and it is important. “Only” here modifies “infallible.” God’s Word is our only infallible rule, but not the only place we may go for guidance. I do not believe the Bible will give us all the answers to all the questions we have. I do not believe, for instance, that it tells us which diet is right. But, given that questions about education are ultimately questions about the nature of man and his purpose, we should expect to get a lot of insight from the Scriptures. Lastly, we need an approach to education which accounts for every child, not just covenant children. I find it quite odd actually that most Christian approaches are just for kids from Christian homes. Anyone who teaches can have non-Christian children under their care. This is certainly true in public schools but also in Christian schools unless they strictly limit enrolment. It can even be true in the home for those who take in foster kids or watch others’ children. There may be differences in how education is applied and received by covenant versus non-covenant children, but our statement of what education is should be applicable to all people.

One of the thinkers I will be looking at is Peter Ton. His master’s thesis, “Is Classical Christian Education Compatible with a Reformed Christian Perspective on Education?,” following Vriend, lays out a few schools of thought among reformed thinkers on education, he distinguishes three categories: confessionalist, positive Calvinist, and antithetical. Though not everyone need fit into one of these boxes, I think it is helpful to have these categories in mind. They give us some sense of the issues at stake and some way to evaluate where a given thinker falls on the spectrum of belief. Confessionalists, Ton says emphasize content. It is not enough to put a Christian spin on non-Christian facts. We need to teach our own theology and confessions and history. This approach is more in line with classical education which also emphasizes content. Awareness is preferred over action. Little concern is given to learning styles and teaching strategy. The Positive Calvinist is more progressive and emphasizes process over content. The  response to what is learned is important. The goal is not so much to develop students’ minds as to practice stewardship, justice and compassion. Lastly, the Antithetical approach, which Ton himself takes, bridges some of the gaps between the other two. It states that all ages have their problems and there is no golden age to which we look back. It combines the content of confessionalist with the practical application of positive Calvinist. Education equips children to live in this world and fulfill their covenant responsibilities. The faith of the teacher and community and the content of the educational materials are important. A distinctly Christian curriculum is also important.

Some questions to ask of each thinker, then, include:

  • What does he assume about the nature of man, including his ability to learn and to receive what is good?
  • What does he see as the ultimate purpose of man?
  • What is the purpose of education and how does it serve man’s ultimate purpose? Are they the same or is education a stepping stone?
  • Can these ideas be applied to all children, whether from believing homes or not?
  • Is there more of an emphasis on taking in knowledge or on application and action?
  • Is there a set body of knowledge that one needs to know?
  • How much individualism is allowed for?
  • What does it say about knowledge, especially knowledge that we get from non-Christian sources?
  • Is the method applicable to both home and school environments? Does it prefer one over the other?

Lastly, I will point you to a few writers whose work I have already reviewed:

J.G. Vos What is Christian Education?

Cornelius Van Til Essays on Christian Education

Rousas Rushdoony Philosophy of Christian Curriculum

Christopher Dawson The Crisis in Western Education (a Roman Catholic writer)

Greg Harris The Christian Homeschool

David Smith and Susan Felch Teaching and Christian Imagination

John Milton “Of Education”

Nebby

What We Study and Why: Fine Arts

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

This week we will be discussing fine arts, by which I mean why and how we study what other people have produced. Hands-on art, what we ourselves might produce, will be discussed in another post.

Why We Study the Arts

Most recently we looked at literature; many of the same arguments will apply to the arts. As one of the main goals in studying literature is to explore ideas, so with art and music. These ideas are often more subtly expressed when we use images, colors, and sounds instead of words, but they are ideas nonetheless. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say, and there are some ideas which are better communicated in an instant with an image than with those many words.

An artist (or musician) is like an author. Human words on not on the same level as the Word of God, and human art is but an echo of the artistry of God in creation. But we can learn from it nonetheless. Art and music allow us to reflect on what God has done, to take some small portion or idea and to meditate on it for a time.

The arts often follow the philosophy of the time. As such, they tell us as much about ourselves as about God, but this is still useful and good. We learn of the evil in our own hearts and, by God’s grace, our potential for good as well. We learn about our own need and that of our neighbor. Francis Schaeffer’s books do a wonderful job of demonstrating the philosophical trends that underlie art and of reflecting on what is good and bad in human art (see bibliography).

God not only made the world good, He also made it beautiful. Another reason we study the arts is simply to experience beauty. When Paul in Philippians tells us what to fill our minds with, he includes “whatever is lovely” (Phil. 4:8; ESV). Some perhaps tend towards a utilitarianism that sees no place for beauty, but when God in the Old Testament gave instructions for His tabernacle, it was a thing of beauty with much ornamentation and artistry. I remember a professor telling me that more than anything else the Hebrews were known for the beauty and ornamentation of the high priest’s robes.

Ultimately, the reason we study anything is that it points us to God. Beauty itself — which cannot be explained by evolutionary science (see Ferris Jabr, “How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution”) — points is to the Creator (see Rick Stedman, 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God). Hannah Anderson, in her exposition of the Philippians 4 passage, tells us that the Greek word used for “lovely” describes “both the thing itself and the response it produces in us” (All That’s Good, Kindle loc. 1642).  There is an irony here — beauty, by the very virtue of its being anti-utilitarian serves a purpose, to show us that there is more than what we see, something worth sacrificing for.

How We Study the Arts

If there are things which are lovely, then there are also things with are un-lovely. As God embodies an absolute standard of Truth, so He embodies a standard of Beauty. We live in a very subjective age which allows all things and says that whatever is good in your eyes is good for you. That is not what we believe when it comes to Truth, so we need not believe it about Beauty.

I am not the person to say what that absolute standard of beauty entails. Volumes could be written on the subject I am sure. Nonetheless, as I often do, I will give a few thoughts–

The arts have form and meaning. Ideas are expressed in a particular medium and within that medium in a certain genre or style. I find the ideas, once we are able to discern them, are much easier to evaluate. Which is not to say that we should only study pieces with good ideas; it is often just as valuable to look at the despair of our fellow man. We see his need and we see our own. We follow bad ideas to their conclusions and see their futility. The test of art is often in the result — does it ultimately point us to God? Sometimes it is the things that make us run the opposite direction which get us there quickest.

The intent of the artist is not necessarily the most important thing. He may not get beyond his own despair. He may not see the futile end of his ideas, or even if he does he may never reach for something more, but his work can still drive others to God. Just as the prophets did not always understand the full meaning of their message, so the artist may not fully understand his own work.

Education, I have argued, is the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as one person may look at an impending storm and think about nothing more than a ruined day while another sees the power and glory of God, so our reactions to art or music will depend upon the Holy Spirit’s work in our hearts. These moments of inspiration sometimes come upon us suddenly, but more often they come to us because we have developed that elusive thing called discernment.  When we steep ourselves in truth and in all those good things that Paul lists in Philippians, we become more adept at recognizing them when we meet them again.  This is another reason it is good to expose our children to good art and music — they will develop a taste for it and be better able to recognize what it good and true and beautiful.

The above remarks largely concern the content of art, but we can also consider its form. While there are certainly forms of art and music that I do not like, I am not a snob about it. There is always a new style that appalls an older generation. Many of the things that we now consider classic were once themselves shocking.

I am not arguing that we all need to study grunge rock because it could embody truth.  I think it is fine to follow one’s own tastes up to a point at least. On a practical level, I find it very helpful to study the arts alongside history. Schaeffer’s book, again, provides a good guide for how the art and music of a time reflect its ideas. Older children would even read this for themselves (there is a video as well which is even easier to digest).  I will include in the bibliography a list of resources we have used on in studying art and music,

Nebby

Bibliography

Books on the theory behind the arts and beauty —

how they express ideas and how they point us to God

Anderson, Hannah. All That’s Good. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2018.

Horner, Grant. Meaning at the Movies. Crossway, 2010.

Jabr, Ferris. “How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution,The New York Times Magazine (Jan. 9, 2019).

Ryken, Leland. The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly about the Arts.  Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2005.

Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005 (originally published 1976).

Stedman, Rick. 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God.  Harvest House, 2017.

Resources for studying the arts

Adventures in Art. (Cornerstone Curriculum)

Beethoven’s Wig. (CD collection)

De Rynck, Patrick. How to Read a Painting: Lessons from the Old Masters.

Hillyer, V.M. A Child’s History of Art.

Janson, Horst W. and Dora Jane. The Story of Painting from Cave Painting to Modern Times.

Kohl, MaryAnn. Discovering Great Artists.

Lacey, Sue. Start with Art (series).

Persons, Marjorie Kiel. Themes to Remember. (books and CDs)

Roalf, Peggy. Looking at Paintings (series).

Sister Wendy: The Complete Collection  (video series)

Usborne Children’s History of Art.

Van Loon, Hendrik. The Arts. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1937.

What We Study and Why: Mathematics

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

Last time, we wrapped up the section of this series on practical details. You can find that summary post here. Today I’d like to begin a new sub-series on individual subjects. I have argued that the teacher’s attitude is paramount and so a large part of what we are doing here is just to frame each subject rightly. Whether you are a homeschooling parent or employed in a school setting, you may find yourself having to teach subjects that just don’t thrill you (what on earth does grammar have to do with the kingdom of God?). While we will touch on some practical details as well (why teach pagan myths? does everyone need calculus?), the main goal of this part of the series is just to show why we teach each subject.

There are a couple of big ideas behind what we are doing here, including: All truth is God’s truth; In education we lay before our students the things of God, primarily His general revelation which comes to us in many forms; and The purpose of education in the life of the believer is for the transforming of his (fallen) mind. (If you are just dropping in, I do recommend reading some of what has come before; see this summary post on the theory behind it all.)

With these goals and ideas in mind, we will ask for each of the subjects we address: Why do we study it? How does it point is to God? How does God reveal Himself or His truth through this subject? In answering these questions, we will look at Scripture whenever possible but we will also look at quotes from many other sources.

Finding God in Mathematics

Let’s jump right in then to mathematics. Most would agree that some level of math instruction is necessary. Beyond the basics, there tend to be two camps — those who see no need to go beyond the basics and those who find pleasure and meaning in higher mathematics. The problem is that there is a gap — we don’t convey the beauty of math when we are teaching the basics and so those who do not naturally enjoy it drop it as soon as possible and never get to the part where it seems to expand and take on a wider significance. The solution is to show that math is lovely even at the lower levels (that’s where the teacher’s attitude comes in again). So if you have lost to joy of math, or never had it, here are some quotes to inspire you:

The laws of mathematics point us to the Law of God:

“We take strong ground when we appeal to the beauty and truth of Mathematics; that, as Ruskin points out, two and two make four and cannot conceivably make five, is an inevitable law. It is a great thing to be brought into the presence of a law, of a whole system of laws, that exist without our concurrence,––that two straight lines cannot enclose a space is a fact which we can perceive, state, and act upon but cannot in any wise alter, should give to children the sense of limitation which is wholesome for all of us, and inspire that sursum corda which we should hear in all natural law.” (Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, pp. 230-31)

Mathematics conveys eternity:

“But education should be a science of proportion, and any one subject that assumes undue importance does so at the expense of other subjects which a child’s mind should deal with. Arithmetic, Mathematics, are exceedingly easy to examine upon and so long as education is regulated by examinations so long shall we have teaching, directed not to awaken a sense of awe in contemplating a self-existing science, but rather to secure exactness and ingenuity in the treatment of problems.” (Ibid., p. 231; emphasis added)

Math underlies the universe. It may even be called the langauge of God:

“Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.”  —Galileo Galilei

Math is the foundation of many other fields, both sciences and arts. Its beauty can be seen even by non-Christian authors:

“Mathematical analysis and computer modeling are revealing to us that the shapes and processes we encounter in nature — the way that plants grow, the way that mountains erode or rivers flow, the way that snowflakes or islands achieve their shapes, the way that light plays on a surface, the way the milk folds and spins into your coffee as yo stir it, the way that laughter sweeps through a crowd of people — all these things in their seemingly magical complexity can be described by the interaction of mathematical processes that are, if anything, even more magical in their simplicity.

….

“The things by which our emotions can be moved — the shape of a flower or a Grecian urn, the way a baby grows, the way the wind brushes across your face, the way clouds move, their shapes, the way light dances on water, or daffodils flutter in the breeze, the way in which the person you love moves their head, the way their hair follows that movement, the curve described by the dying fall of the last chord of a piece of music — all these things can be described by the complex flow of numbers.

“That’s not a reduction of it, that’s the beauty of it.” [Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (New York: Pocket Books, 1988) pp. 182, 184]

That’s all fine, you say, I am inspired but I am still teaching long division to cranky eight-year-olds. A couple of thoughts: I argued recently that when educating we must be careful not to provoke children. Math is a field in which it is very easy to provoke. It tends to come with a lot of repetition. I do think we should all learn to do long division without a calculator. But if I have ten such problems to do, I get my calculator. Why should we ask a second grader to do so many at once? Sometimes more is less (how’s that for a math concept?).

There is a certain progression to math; one can’t do algebra before learning to count. But that doesn’t mean the beauty of math needs to wait until high school or beyond. There are resources which are accessible at younger ages but which either introduce concepts usually reserved for later or give more of a big picture understanding of math, bringing out its complexity and elegance. (I will add a brief bibliography of some we have used at the end of this post.)

Lastly, there is the elephant in the room question: When will I ever use this? And its corollary (there’s a nice math word): Why do I need to learn calculus anyway? As for the first question, I reject the premise. Our approach to education is not utilitarian. Whether we will use upper level math has nothing to do with anything. The end we have in view is not the balancing of checkbooks or even being able to do advanced physics (for which I hear math is useful) but to bring glory to God which we do by learning about Him as He has revealed Himself through creation, and (as the quotes above are meant to show) mathematics is an integral part of that creation.

As for the second question, not everyone needs to learn calculus. We are finite people and time and energy spent on one subject come at the expense of another. So while I do think it is good to learn these things, beyond a certain point we must recognize that we are different — indeed unique, individual — people and that we don’t all have to learn the same things (see this post on core curriculum). So perhaps you don’t have to learn calculus.

I’d like to end with a plea — as I work on this section of the series, I am giving you my best ideas and resources but I could use some help. Please reply to this post or contact me if you can help with any of the following:

  • What questions do you have about teaching (insert subject here)?
  • Do you have good quotes about math, or any other subject, that you have run across, particularly about why we teach them and how they point us to God and/or teach us about Him and His creation?
  • Any favorite resources? Since math was our topic this week, feel free to add in the comments your favorite big-picture math resources.

Nebby

A Brief Math Bibliography

Life of Fred Math by Stanley Schmidt (Polka Dot Publishing) — You may have heard of this alternative math curriculum. It takes a narrative approach and follows the life of 5-year-old math professor Fred. Though the author says the elementary books can be used as a stand-alone math curriculum, I was always hesitant to do so. They do, however, make a lovely supplement to whatever else you may be using. The stories and such may be overly silly for some but my kids always loved them. The elementary series is a collection of thin books with short chapters. It is easy to add in one chapter a week. Ages 10 and up could breeze through them pretty quickly. The upside of these books is that they introduce concepts that usually don’t come up until later such as set theory.

Here’s Looking at Euclid by Alex Bellos

The Number Mysteries by Marcus du Sautoy

Thinking in Numbers by Daniel Tammet

These three books are all of a type. They are roughly middle school level books (and up) that have relatively short chapters which disuss math concepts like pi, prime numbers, and how people in Iceland count.  I am sure there are many other such books out there; these are just a few we have used.

 

 

 

Reformed Christian Education: Drawing Some Conclusions

Dear Reader,

This post is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed Christian philosophy theology of education. Read all the posts here.

I began this series in January by arguing that we need a distinctively reformed Christian approach to education.   It is now July and we have looked at a number of different issues. I would like to try and draw some of these strands together and to propose some conclusions. Thus far most of what I have said has been on a fairly theoretical level — it is about the why of education more than the day-to-day hows. I can’t promise there won’t be more theory in the future but my goal moving forward is to look more at the practical details and to begin to show how we can implement the theory in real life.

Early on, I tried to show that every philosophy of education makes some assumptions, whether acknowledged or not, about who the child is and why we educate. As such education is a very theological enterprise. If our theology is distinctive — and as reformed people we do tend to be pretty picky about theology — we should expect those distinctives to show up in our philosophy of education.

My goal today is not to say something new but to combine everything in one place so we can see how it all fits together. If you want more depth on any point and/or to see where I got these ideas, click on the links provided (or, again, all the posts in this series can be found here). First we will look at  who we are educating by reviewing the nature of the child. Then we we will look at what we are teaching. Finally we will look at what happens when you bring the two together, what is the desired outcome and how does it come about.

The Nature of the Child

Every philosophy of education makes assumptions about the child, his nature and abilities. We looked at the child in both the Old and New Testaments and saw that:

  • Children are not a separate category of being. That is to say, they are at a most basic level the same sort of creature as adults.
  • All people, including children, consist of physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual aspects. Though the Bible speaks of the mind, heart, soul and strength, it does not divide up a person in such a way that one of these parts can be addressed or can operate in isolation from the others.
  • Children are included in the body of God’s people and are called to obey God’s law.
  • Children are capable both of sin and of faith (through grace, of course).
  • Though they are in all these ways the same as adults, children are nonetheless ignorant and foolish. They are in particular need of education and discipline and the Bible says one’s youth is the best time for these activities.

Anyone who educates assumes that his pupil is in some way incomplete or imperfect. If he were both perfect and complete, there would be no need for education. The child’s lack of certain abilities, what we might call his immaturity, is generally not in dispute. An infant cannot eat steak or talk or walk or write his ABCs or do calculus. There are both physical and intellectual milestones which he has not acheived and cannot acheive in his current state.

One big question any philosophy of education needs to answer is how the child begins to be able to do these things. Will he pick up reading and calculus as naturally as he does walking and talking? Does he need input from adults to master these skills and if so, how much input?

How we answer these questions about the child’s physical and intellectual development is often tied closely to our view of his moral development. Those who view the child as inherently good tend to want to leave him to his own devices on the intellectual plane as well, trusting that he will aquire what is needful to him. This is the approach known as  unschooling.  Radical Unschoolers do not discipline because they trust the child to grow in correct ways on his own, not just physically and intellectually but morally and emotionally as well.

Most professing Christians would not go quite so far. Though all major branches of Christianity have some understanding of man’s fallen nature, how this is interpreted and what it means varies widely (see this post or this one).  The Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestants as well, accept the idea of Original Sin but stop short of the reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. As the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) lays out,  we believe that all the parts of human nature as being affected by sin (WCF IV). To the extent that the mind in particular is affected, this is going to alter how we educate and how successful we can be in education.

To sum up, as we look at who we are educating, we need to see that the child is fully human with all the aspects of a person, mind, soul, heart, and body. On the spiritual place, he is called to obey God’s law, but, like his parents, has a sin nature which makes him incapable of doing so. Nonethless, he also, again like his parents, is capable — by God’s grace alone — of true saving faith. His other aspects are not independent of his spiritual nature or of each other. They too have been affected by the Fall. His body, heart, and mind are not just immature due to his age and abilities but are corrupted.

The Fodder of Education

Before going too far, I want to reiterate a point that I made last time: when I speak of education I am defining it fairly narrowly as an intellectual activity. Because we are all made up of parts, the mind cannot be separated entirely from the other aspects of a person. This is easy to see on a practical level: we cannot easily educate a hungry child or one in the midst of emotional truama. So too education is also closely tied to discipline, but it is not discipline (see this post of biblical discipline). Nonetheless, education, as I am definfing it (and this is largely a matter of definition), is an affair of the mind.

If we want our children’s bodies to grow as they ought, we give them good food and exercise. If we want their minds to grow, we must also nourish and work them. Most of us already have some idea of what we want our children to learn — they must read and write and do at least basic math.  They should have some knowledge of history and science and maybe learn a foreign langauge. When we get into the specifics later this year, I will address each of these subjects and talk about why teach them and how. For now I hope that we can at least all see that there is some body of knowledge that comprises education whatever that may be.

All this stuff we teach, the fodder of education if you will, falls under the heading of Natural or General Revelation.  The Scriptures are God’s Supernatural Revelation to us in that they come not through the laws of Creation which God has ordained but directly from God Himself. They are also termed Special Revelation because they give specific knowledge to man about salvation and redemption. In contrast, God’s Natural or General Revelation comes to us through His Creation and teaches us about God in a more broad way.

Too often, I think, we limit General Revelation. We may take a brief walk in the woods and say some things about beauty and order and then we move on. But there is a lot more to General Revelation than we can get from a quick surface observation. The testimony of scientists, both believers and non-believers, is that the more we delve into the universe and look at how it works, the more wonder we find. Nor is General Revelation limited to the physical universe. God also reveals Himself through events  and through people:

“General revelation does not come to man in the form of direct verbal communications. It consists in an embodiment of the divine thought in the phenomena of nature, in the general constitution of the human mind, and in the facts of experience or history.” Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1981 (originally published 1933)] pp. 26-27

Of course, believing parents will also teach their children the Scriptures, but the bulk of what we teach falls under the heading of God’s General Revelation. For a glimpse into how many of the traditional school subjects reveal the Creator, see this post.

What Happens in Education

Imagine yourself in front of a class of children. Some are from Christian homes. They are what we call covenant children. By God’s gracious decree, we assume them to be part of His covenant people. They are redeemed and, while still sin lives in them, they are capable of choosing and doing good. Others in your class are not from Christian homes. As yet we see no evidence of salvation in them, though of course we hope and pray that they will be saved. These children are not (yet) capable of choosing and doing good. When you teach a lesson to these children, they hear the same words and read the same books, but what is happening in them is fundamentally different because they are fundamentally different.  While there is one thing we do when we educate, there are two fundamentally different purposes, one for the believing covenant child and one for the (as yet) unsaved child.

Thus far we have looked at who the child is and at what we are teaching him. Now it is time to see what happens when we take the fodder of education and present it to our pupil. In education, we present to the child the things of God, all the truth and beauty and goodness that God has given is in His General Revelation. How this is received, whether it even can be received, will depend upon the character of the recipient and the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is actually a little easier to discern what is happening with the non-believer. Paul tells us in Romans what the purpose of General Revelation is in the life of the non-believer:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Rom. 1:20-21; ESV)

General Revelation is a revealing of the Creator God. To the extent that men fail to see the Creator behind the creation, it serves to condemn them. Of course, if we are educators, we hope — and pray — that this will not be the case for our students. We desire that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, they will recognize their Creator in the things He has made and done.

Perhaps your student has seen a tree (I hope!) but maybe he has never appreciated the intricate process by which sunlight becomes food for the plant and ultimately for us. When we bring these things before our non-believing students, those outside the covenant community of God, we are playing a part in the process that will ultimately either lead to their salvation or seal their fate.  In theological language, this is the External Call which goes forth to all humanity (see this post). [1]

A covenant child or one who has made a profession of faith is in a bit of a different situation (for my previous discussion of this point, incuding a lot more verse references, see this post).  The base condition of man is to be unable to choose or do good. As discussed above, all aspects of his being are affected and are fallen or corrupted.  But once the Holy Spirit has begun to dwell in a person this is no longer the case. We are still pretty sinful people, but we are no longer ruled by our sin natures. We are in the midst of a process called sanctification which will last throughout this life. Sanctification means that we are gradually being made more holy. The image of God in us is being perfected as we are made more like Christ who is Himself the perfect Image of God (Col. 1:15).

As reformed people, we believe that the Fall affected all aspects of our natures. So too sanctification affects all aspects — body, mind, heart and soul (WCF XIII:II). In education we bring before our believing students the things of God. What happens when God’s people learn and think about what He has made and done? They are transformed (cf. Phil. 4:8-9) —

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom. 12:1-2; ESV)

This renewal of the mind is one piece of sanctification and should be something we desire and actively seek for ourselves and our children.

We are often tempted to concentarte exclusively on the moral aspect of sanctification. We focus on whether we have sinned today and how much and is it any less than yesterday. Fighting specific sins on our lives is essential, but it is not the whole of sanctification. There is a lot to be said also for immersing ourselves in the world God has made not because it will make us better — though it will – but simply because He has made it. As I argued in this post, the pursuit of knowledge and beauty for their own sakes is valuable because all true knowledge and beauty come from and belong to God. Nonetheless, because all the aspects of our beings work together, we should expect that as we actively participate in the sanctification of our minds by feeding them the things of God that we will become better people as well. As I discussed in this post there is an intimate connection between faith and knowledge.

Conclusion and the Most Important Point

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Prov. 1:7; ESV; cf. Prov. 1:29; 2:5; 9:10)

You can’t go far in the book of Proverbs without seeing that faith and knowledge go hand in hand. True knowledge comes from God (James 1:5). When we educate we bring before people — no matter their age — the things of God. We show them what He has made and how it works and what He has done in history and how He has made us. These are things we should all spend more time contemplating.

What happens when we bring these thinsg before a particular pesrons depends not on us but entirely on the eternal plan of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in that person’s life. Let me say that again because it really is the most important point I can make today: We don’t “teach” anyone anything. We bring to them the things of God and whether they receive those things or not is dependent upon the work of God the Holy Spirit in their lives. If the student before us is not a believer, we hope and pray that they see God in what we show them and that it will be the beginning of faith. If they already have faith, we expect that they will grow in that faith and in their understanding of God as they  contemplate what He has done.

Nebby

[1] A side bar: You may be asking yourself: Why not just present Special Revelation, i.e. the message of the Scriptures, to the unbelieving child? Of course in the end we all need to understand the particulars of the gospel message. If you are teaching unbelieving children in a Christian school or in your home, you should certainly make the Bible part of their shcool day. But you might be teaching in a setting in which you cannot do that (a public or non-Christian school) or it may be that your student is not ready for the meat of the gospel yet. Special Revelation is essential to salvation in a way that General revelation is not, yet General Revelation is one of the ordinary means God uses to prepare hearts for the work of His Spirit.

Christianity, Science, and the Pursuit of Truth

Dear Reader,

This is part of my ongoing series in search of a reformed Christian philosophy theology of education. Find all the links here.

In recent weeks we have been discussing common grace and education (see this post and this one). One of the big questions we have been wrestling with is whether there is anything good and true that we can learn from non-Christians. The short answer is yes. I agree with Van Til and others that God can and does use non-believers to further His greater goal, whether they co-operate willingly with His Spirit or not. Truth and beauty can come to us through non-Christian sources.

But, as is often the case, the simple answer is not the full answer. The line of thinking goes something like this: God is the Source of truth; beauty and goodness are defined by Him. As Creator, God’s nature is seen in His works and is thus available to all people, but not all people recognize their Creator. God chooses to reveal Himself more fully to some people (in reformed theological terms: the elect). The Holy Spirit enables the elect to better see and understand the things of God. Thus we should expect those God has chosen to have a better grasp of what is good and true and beautiful than those who are still mired in sin.

I want to be careful how I say this. I am not saying that truth does not come to us through non-believers or that everything believers say is true (or that everything they do is good or everything they create is beautiful).  We should test all things claiming to be truth (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1) ,  no matter how they come to us. Nonetheless, we should expect more truth and beauty and goodness to come to us through Christians than through non-Christians.

Making the Argument, or a Whole Mess of Quotes

I’m going to overwhelm you with quotes today. While they are not all making exactly the same argument, their  conclusions tend to point in the same direction. Should you want to read more, a full, annotated bibliography is at the end of this post.

The work of God’s Holy Spirit in salvation and sanctification affects not just the heart but the mind. There is a sense in which the unsaved person cannot fully understand God’s universe:

“The Holy Spirit’s work in regeneration has an effect not only on man’s spiritual and moral nature, but also on his intellect; it opens the eyes of his understanding (Eph. 1:18). He begins to see facts in the light of God (Psalm 36:9); that is, he begins to see the true meaning of facts. The unregenerate person, on the other hand, continues to maintain that facts can be understood and explained in the light of man; he recognizes no higher category than the human mind, and he will never admit that his mind has been darkened by sin.” J.G. Vos, What is Christian Education?, p. 3

In other words, a true understanding of history or science or beauty is impossible without a godly mindset — that is, without participation in God’s mindset:

“The regenerate person, on the other hand, realizes that the human mind does not exist of itself; it is a created mind and is not competent to be the absolute and final interpreter of facts.” Vos, p. 5

“Another way to say this is that God doesn’t have a point of view; he has a complete view. And because he revealed himself, we can come to a true understanding of the world, thinking God’s thoughts after him — however imperfectly or incompletely — and knowing the truth as God knows it to be. All truth is God’s truth, and therefore, as Jonathan Edwards rightly said, all knowledge lies in the ‘agreement of our ideas with the ideas of God.'” Philip Graham Ryken, What is the Christian Worldview?, p. 15

On a very fundamental level, Christians and non-Christians do not and cannot view the world in the same way:

“The conclusion of the whole matter is this. There are two mutually exclusive principles for the interpretation of life.” Van Til, Essays on Christian Education, p. 88

The Christian, because he sees a unifying principle and a divine order in the universe, will understand and interpret the facts before him differently:

“There are no uninterpreted facts. In every area of life and thought, all facts derive their meaning from the religious presuppositions of man.” Rousas Rushdoony, Philosophy of Christian Curriculum, Kindle Loc. 993

Christianity, Scholarship and the Arts

We can see this in various fields. I am going to talk about science in more detail below, but let’s begin with the social sciences and the arts. Without a theistic worldview, we have no standard for right and wrong, no way to judge the events and people of history. Without a Creator, the universe has no meaning and no purpose. If we look at history with such a view, we see it only as a class struggle (much like the very struggle to exist which Darwinian evolution posits) or a mere series of causes and effects, a kind of determinism without any determiner.

“In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses everything, including people. To those who hold this view everything people are or do is explained by some form of determinism, some type of behaviorism, some kind of reductionism.” Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (p. 164)

Christian belief also provides a justification for art:

“The doctrine of creation also affirms music and the arts. Although there is nothing specific about this in Genesis 1 and 2, what we do with sight and sound is part of the inherent potentiality of creation . . .

“Together these various aspects of human life give us what theologians call the ‘Cultural Mandate.’ We have a God-given responsibility to develop the possibilities of creation in ways that reveal our Maker’s praise, and this to fill the whole earth with his glory. We are to do this in science, politics, business, sports, literature, film and all the arts.”  Ryken, pp. 23-24

Christianity and Science

Because Christianity and science are often portrayed as opposites in modern society, I’ll take  a few extra moments to address their relationship specifically.  Christianity is the basis of science because it assumes a world that makes sense (something many Christians today need to be reminded of):

“Science and the scientific method arose in one and only one place: Western Civilization (Western Europe, to be precise). Why is this the case?   . . .

“The surprising answer is Judeo/Christian theology.

“In most ancient societies, nature was viewed as capricious and erratic, as were the gods themselves . . .

“Science and the scientific method could arise only if the universe and world were orderly, predictable, and inherently rational.” Rick Stedman, 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God, pp. 134-35

“That is, scientific exploration assumes that there exists an underlying order of the world that is inteligible even when it is yet undiscovered, as secret code ciphered into the natures of things themselves, a knowable order rather than mere gibberish.” Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, A Meaningful World, p. 123

“Far from conflicting with science, creation is what makes science possible by establishing an orderly universe . . . The people of God have been keenly interested in the study of science ever since, as a way of exploring the mind of their Maker.” Ryken, p. 23

Francis Schaeffer makes the argument from a more philosophical point of view. Christianity not only assumes a universe that makes sense, it also assumes that we can use our senses to know  and find out about that universe:

“In brief, science, as it is now usually conceived, has no epistemological base  — that is, no base for being sure that what scientists think they observe corresponds to what really exists.” Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (p. 199)

But it is not just our assumption of a logical and perceivable universe that leads us to truth but also our innate love of beauty. This love, of course, can drive both Christians and non-Christians. But I would argue that it should be more of a motivating force to Christians:

” . . . there would be no periodic table without our very human love of beauty. Elaborating on this point, the great mathematician Henri Poinare said, ‘The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living.'” Wiker, Meaningful World, p. 115

A specific example of how Christian belief makes a difference in scientific thought:

“Materialism erases the distinction between nonliving and living things, and that misses the essential nature of the way proteins exist in cells. A functional protein structure depends on the living unity of the cell; that is, it is by its function as a part in relation to the living whole, one whose particular, complex arrangements of parts is necessary to carry out its intricate function.” Wiker, A Meaningful World, p. 211

The Flip-Side, or Everybody Has Presuppositions

I tend to get frustrated with Christians throwing around the term “worldview,” but the truth is how one perceives the world and its purpose will affect one’s thoughts in all areas. For this I would point you to a whole book: Benjamin Wiker’s The Darwin Myth. Wiker gives what I think is a very fair treatment of the man but shows how Darwin’s lack of faith (and he does argue that Darwin was not a believer) skewed his view of evolution.  Darwin, for example, starts with the assumption that there is no absolute morality:

“According to Darwin, morality doe snot govern evolution. If it did, then we might expect a divine overseer. Darwin would not allow that; and in order to disbar it, Darwin had to argue that morality was created by evolution. It is, in Darwin’s scheme, an evolutionary after-effect of sociability.” (p. 92)

Indeed, Darwin’s whole theory is based upon not just a godless foundation but on the antithesis of God:

“Death, Darwin thought, was the key to life, a complete inversion of [his wife] Emma’s superstitious belief in a creator God and the idea that death was the punishment for original sin. Death was, is, and always will be, the creator.” (p. 66)

Wiker contrasts Darwin’s take on evolution with that of his contemporaries who were believers, showing that the views of each were shaped by his underlying beliefs:

“The chosen scientific hypothesis or paradigm, the lens through which the investigator attempts to scrutinize nature, both magnifies and distorts, bringing objects nearer and crowding them within a particular field of vision, but at the expense of what lies outside and beyond the frame.” (p. 120)

The conclusion for Wiker is not a rejection of evolution per se but of Darwinian evolution in particular.

Wrapping up

The point of all this is not to beat up Darwin, or any other non-Christian thinker. We should not ignore the truth that comes to us through non-Christians whom God also uses to further His plan. But we should expect more truth and beauty and goodness to come to us through Christians —  because the minds of Christians are being transformed by the Holy Spirit (this, in truth, is education), because their eyes are opened to the divine revelation that comes to us through Creation, because they have the philosophical and theological framework from which to understand and make sense of science and history.

Nebby

[1] This post focuses on the presuppositions behind an idea; we can also look at its effects. A tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 7:15-16). It is no coincidence that the wide-spread acceptance of Darwinian evolution was followed by a host of other bad ideas from the Waldorf method education (which is predicated upon the idea that kids evolve into people) to the rise of sociology which seeks to control human progress through social manipulation to the attempted extermination of the Jews and other (slightly) more benign attempts at eugenics.

Bibliography

Rushdoony, Rousas. Philosophy of Christian Curriculum. Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon/Ross House Books, 2001 (originally published 1981). I was not crazy about Rushdoony’s book but I think he is right on this point: there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. No one ever views anything without their worldview coming into play.

Ryken, Philip Graham. What is the Christian Worldview? Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2006. This is a wonderful short book, more of a pamphlet actually. I find the title a little deceptive. I think it is more of an introduction to reformed theology. I make this one a must-read for my kids when they are middle school aged.

Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005 (originally published 1976). Schaeffer’s subject is more philosophy than anything else though he covers big trends in art as well. A Christian classic and a must-read.

Stedman, Rick. 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2017. This is a fairly simple and somewhat redundant read but is good as an introduction or for tweens/teens to read. My review is here.

Van Til, Cornelius. Essays on Christian Education. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974. Van Til is a solid reformed thinker. More than any other, his book on Christian education is one I find myself returning to. See my review here.

Vos, J.G. What is Christian Education? Pittsburgh, PA: Reformed Presbyterian Church of N.A. This is a very slim little pamphlet but with a lot of good nuggets packed into it. I highly recommend picking this one up.

Wiker, Benjamin. The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin. Regnery Publishing, 2009. This is an easy book but a must-read. I find Wiker’s treatment very fair and well-researched. He does not reject evolution as such but Darwinian evolution. His own love for and awe at Creation comes through.

Wiker, Benjamin and Jonathan Witt. A Meaningful World. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006. I am in love with this book. It is a tougher read but well worth it. The authors show how Shakespeare and chemistry and astrophysics all point to the Creator. They clearly love and appreciate the beauty of God’s world and it shows in their writing.

Sabbath Mood Homeschool

Desiring That a Sabbath Mood Rest on Your Homeschool

A Work in Progress Productions

Learn•Grow•Shine || Based in Attleboro, Ma

dayuntoday

my musings, wise or otherwise

Festival Fete

locally grown art, food, and merriment

StrongHaven

A Literary Homestead

journey-and-destination

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Harmony Fine Arts

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Sage Parnassus

Blogging about education, theology, and more

A peaceful day

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Living Charlotte Mason in California

Blogging about education, theology, and more

weeklywalrus

Weekly Walrus Whatevers

Creations by Maris

Handwoven Textiles

Fisher Academy International ~ Teaching Home

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Afterthoughts

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Leah's Bookshelf

Book Reviews You Can Trust

Duxbury Art Boosters

Supporting the visual arts in Duxbury Public Schools