Posts Tagged ‘reformed theology’

Church, State . . . and School?

Dear Reader,

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

Is there such a thing as a Christian school? Well, of course there are Christian schools. The question I want to explore today is what if any the place of the Christian school is vis-à-vis the Church and state.

If you have been reading here a while, you know that I have been going through a number of books on education. In doing so I was struck by the fact that both Cornelius Van Til and Rousas Rushdoony (see my reviews of their books here and here respectively) speak of the Christian school as an almost divinely-inspired body complementary to the Church:

“Oh, yes, the church and home may speak of this Christ. But neither the church nor the home can deal at all adequately with the length and breadth of Christ as the Savior and Transformer of human culture . . . only in the school, in which professional people engage in setting forth the whole history and meaning of human culture, can Christ and his work be portrayed in full detail . . .” [Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974) p. 23-24]

“However, where the state seeks to license, accredit, control, or in any way govern the Christian school as a school, it is then another question. It is usurpation of power by the state, and it involves the control of one religion, Christianity, by another, humanism . . . The school, moreover, is a separate sphere under God from church and state, and it thrives most when free from both.” [Rousas Rushdoony, Philosophy of Christian Curriculum (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon/Ross House Books, 2001) Kindle loc. 1609]

“It should be stressed that discipline requires the cooperation of church, school, and family. Each has its own distinctive task and cannot infringe on the other.” (Rushdoony, Kindle loc. 1819)

There are a number of ideas embedded in even these brief quotes. While they all may work together, I don’t think one need take them as an all-or-nothing proposition:

  • School is a divinely-ordained institution on par with Church and State.
  • School is complementary to Church and State, fulfilling a unique place which may have some overlap with but does not duplicate their roles.
  • The responsibility of educating children belongs to the school.
  • The state and the church should not interfere with the work of the (Christian) school.
  • Family is also a distinct entity with its own role.

The Scriptures address both secular governments and the Church explicitly. Both are given specific authority and specific tasks and have divinely-ordained leaders (on government: Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17; on the Church: Matt. 16:18; 28:18-20; Acts 20:28; Col. 1:18). The same cannot be said of school.

The main reason schools are not mentioned in the Bible (it seems silly even to have to say it) is that they simply were not a feature of the time, at least not in the way we now know them. Of course there was education in some form (see this post on teaching in the Old Testament and this one on the New), but I cannot think of a single reference to organized group education of children.

[There is evidence that adults were educated in “classes” by teachers. Jesus was the “Rabbi” of His disciples (Jn. 3:2, among many others) and Paul learned from Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). The boy Jesus learned from the teachers in the temple (Lk. 2:42ff), but this does not seem to have been the norm; the shocking part of this story is that at 12 He was discussing theology like an adult.]

What we do see is that parents are charged with teaching their children about the things of God (Gen. 18:19; Deut. 4:9; 6:7; Ps. 78:4-6; Prov. 1:8; 4:1; 6:20). There is some evidence that others, notably grandparents, might help in this (Gen. 48; 2 Tim. 1:5).

Neither the Church nor State is charged with providing schools. This does not necessarily mean that they should not do so, however. With regard to the Church, they are of course charged with the education of all members, including children, in the things of God. Does this mean the Church shouldn’t provide other forms of education? Not necessarily, but we should balance any such endeavor with a caution against allowing the Church to distracted from its main mission, namely the preaching of the gospel (cf. Acts 6:2).

Among the functions of civil government mentioned in the Bible are: collecting taxes (Matt. 22:17-21; Rom. 13:6-7), punishing wrong-doers (Rom. 13:4), administering justice and settling disputes (Exod. 18:13ff), and waging war (1 Pet. 2:14). There is one more function of government: the care of the helpless, among whom the Scriptures name widows, the fatherless, the poor and needy, and foreigners (Ps. 82:1-4; Jer. 22:3). If we are going to find a Scriptural justification for state education, it is here. One might argue that in our society the way to help the poor, to help them get ahead, is to provide education.

In our church, there are a number of African refugees. As pro-homeschooling as I am, it is hard for me to imagine how these parents — who are often traumatized, don’t speak English, and are frequently illiterate in their native languages (this is true of the mothers especially)  — would ever be able to educate their own children. It would be wonderful if there were good Christian schools for these children to go to but the fact is that there are not. So we are back again to whose responsibility it is to care for them in ways their parents are unable to.

I don’t think there are hard and fast answers here; there is a lot of room for debate and it may be, given the state of affairs on the ground, that what is the right answer in one location is just not feasible in another. But here is what I think:

  • There is no biblical justification for the School (big “S”) on par with the Church and State.
  • If there were any institution on such a level, it would be the family, not the school (though Church trumps family; Matt. 12:50; 19:29; Lk. 14:26).
  • It is the parents who are charged with educating their own children and who must bear primary responsibility.
  • This is not to say that the parents cannot or should not have help.
  • The Church should certainly educate all its members, of all ages, in the things of God.
  • While there is nothing inherently wrong with a Church providing education in other areas, we must be very careful that any such ministry does not distract from the main work of the Church.
  • A better case can be made for the State to take a role in education, especially as it concerns the most needy members of society. However, there are many ways that this could happen . . .
  • Which brings us back to: education is ultimately the responsibility of the parents and Christian parents need to ensure that, above all, their children receive a God-centered education.

Nebby

 

 

 

Advertisements

Education and the Covenant Child

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.

In recent weeks, we have been discussing common grace as affects our understanding of education (see this post and this one). Specifically, I have spent some time trying to answer the question: How shall we educate non-believing children? Are they capable of true education, of receiving that which is good and true and beautiful?

But I do not want to neglect the children of believers. Most of the children in our homeschools and Christian schools are going to come from professing families. As such, they are what we call covenant children. That is, they are considered from birth (and before) to be part of God’s covenant community.

When speaking of those who are clearly unregenerate, of whom we have no evidence of salvation (yet), I argued that education forms part of the call that goes out to all humanity (Matt. 22:14) and presents to them God’s general revelation by which He may be known (Rom. 1:19-20). But what of believers then, those who already have received the call? How does education benefit them?

This is my thesis: Education is a piece of sanctification.

In previous posts, I hope I have shown that children are not a separate category. They are fully persons. Education does not prepare them for a life which they will have later nor does God wait to work in them. Conversely, education is not confined to childhood,  though I do believe children are especially adapted to learn (read all these arguments here.)

We have also discussed what kind of goal we should have for education and argued that we need long-term goals which look not merely to the next stage of life but even beyond this life, goals which serve God’s greater plan.  These goals should focus first and foremost on the individual, not the society (while acknowledging that in God’s economy there is no conflict between the two; see this post and this one).

To these ideas, let me add one more: Man is fallen in all his faculties (WCF IV:II) and needs to be regenerated in all his faculties (WCF XIII:II). We could give various lists of what constitutes the “faculties,” but I like this one: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5; all biblical quotes are from the ESV unless otherwise noted) or the New Testament version: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mk. 12:30). The biblical view is not one which chops man up into pieces. The body is not divorced from the spirit nor the mind from the heart such that one can think one thing and do another or keep one’s soul pristine while sullying one’s body. Still, there is some idea here that we do have different aspects. As reformed people, we believe all the parts of the person are fallen and in need of redemption.

Education is a term that has been used in many ways and our tendency these days is  to think of it broadly. Even secular teachers are expected to shape not just the intellect but the character. For Christian parents as well discipline and education are closely entwined. These are not bad tendencies but what I want to address today particularly is the mind, while acknowledging that it does not function apart from the emotions or the body.

I’d like to get at this topic by looking at the word “mind” as it is used in the New Testament. We have already seen that both Old and New Testaments command us to love God with our minds. Our minds can be either for God or against Him (Matt. 16:23; Rom. 8:5-7). There is ample evidence that they are often against (Matt. 16:23= Mk. 8:33; Tit. 1:15). A fallen mind, one in opposition to its Creator, is a curse and the result of sin (Rom. 1:28). But there is hope — when Jesus comes healing people, it is not just bodies that are restored but minds (Lk. 8:35). It is He who opens men’s minds to receive wisdom (Lk. 24:45; cf. Hebr. 8:10; 10:16) or who hardens them (2 Cor. 3:14;  4:4). There is evidence of some level of restoration in this life as Christians we are called to have changed minds, not minds of futility and sin (Eph. 2:3; 4:17; cf. Col. 1:21). Mind is a characteristic of God Himself (Rom. 11:34) and we are to share His mind and to be of one mind (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:16; Phil. 1:27; 2:2,5).  And above all there is this:

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)

The pattern here should be familiar: We are called to a high standard. Sin corrupts our minds so that we cannot meet the standard set in God’s law. But God Himself restores the minds of His people. As Christians we are called to use these restored minds for the good of the Church (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:16; Phil. 1:27; 2:2,5) and for the furtherance of the things of God (Rom. 12:2) and for worship (1 Cor. 14:15). In other words, the same process of fall and redemption applies to our minds as it does to the rest of our persons.

This then is the goal of education in the life of the believer: the renewal, through the power of the Holy Spirit, of the mind to the end that the Church may be built up and God glorified. That renewal is what we call sanctification. It will not be complete in this life, but, through the power of Christ, it is possible to make real progress.

Nebby

 

 

Common Grace, Part 2

Dear Reader,

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

In part 1 of this post, we began to look at the idea of “common grace” as it relates to education. The questions before us are:

  1. Can non-Christians be educated? Are they capable of receiving what is good and true?
  2. Can we learn from non-Christians? How are we to view the seemingly good and true things which they communicate to us?

In part 1, I looked at Cornelius Van Til’s definition of common grace in Essays on Christian Education (Presbyterian and  Reformed Publishing, 1974). I didn’t want to rely on Van Til alone, however, so I sought out other sources on the topic of common grace. The goal for today is to see if Van Til’s depiction (or perhaps just my understanding of it) is in line with general reformed thought and if there are any further conclusions we can draw with regard to education.

The primary source I am relying on for this post is Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (The Ephesians Four Group, 2017; originally pub. 1932). While Van Til’s work was on education and common grace came into it incidentally, Berkhof’s is from the start a systematic theology. He is a well-known and, as far as I know, a well-respected name. Plus he gives a good introduction to the subject including background material and some discussion of the different views and thoughts.  I will summarize what he has to say and then return at the end to a few of my own thoughts.

Common Grace, a la Berkhof

The doctrine of common grace is one of those which does not arise by name in the Scriptures (a fact which we can not necessarily hold against it as even the Trinity is not named as such). Rather it arises as the solution to a seeming inconsistency:

“The question arose, How can we explain the comparatively orderly life in the world, seeing that the whole world lies under the curse of sin? . . . How can we account for it that sinful man still ‘retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior’? . . . How can the unregenerate still speak the truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly virtuous lives?” (Berkhof, Kindle loc. 10291)

Augustine did not teach common grace. His concern was to show that the “so-called virtues [of heathens] were sins, because they did not spring from faith . . . He denies that such deeds are the fruit of any natural goodness in man” (Berkhof, loc. 10300; cf. Heb. 11:6).

Luther made a distinction between the earthly and heavenly spheres, arguing that unregenerate man can do good in the former but not the latter (loc. 10320).

Calvin, though he does not use the term in the sense we now do (loc. 10340), is the first formulator of the doctrine of common grace as we know it. With Augustine, and against Luther, Calvin “firmly maintained that the natural man can of himself do no good work whatsoever” (loc. 10331). But he did argue for a grace which “curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men”(loc. 10331).

As we understand it today, common grace is not a separate act of God (loc. 10362) but refers to “(a) those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or (b) those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure it seems good to Him” (loc. 10382).  Berkhof later goes on to list specific outworkings of common grace (loc. 10517) which are:

  • The full brunt of the punishment for sin is delayed.
  • Man’s sinful nature is restrained. At times, we see that God gives the unregenerate over to their evil desires (Rom. 1:24ff) so that we may conclude that other times He does not do so but restrains sin from its full range. 
  • Man retains some sense of the good, true and beautiful. Included in this is man’s natural inclination towards some form of religion.
  • Man performs what is called “civil good.” These are not actual good works as they do not stem from right motives and therefore cannot please God. Nonetheless they are in harmony with the law of God. Common grace does not produce any good in the unbeliever (cf. loc. 10401) but merely restrains evil so that we can agree with Augustine that they are incapable of true good. 
  • Man receives natural “blessings.” This is where the sun and the rain come in (cf. Matt. 5:45). I put “blessings” in quotes, because, though Berkhof uses the word, he is careful to note that God does not bless the unrighteous as such.

Common grace does not change the hearts of men and is not saving. Berkhof ties it to God’s creative work, as opposed to His redemptive work (loc. 10275), while yet arguing that common grace would not be possible without the redemptive work of Christ (loc. 10436). Common grace is “subservient to the execution of the plan of God in the life of the elect and in the development of the Church. But in addition to that it also serves an independent purpose, namely, to bring to light and to harness for the service of man the hidden forces of nature, and to develop the powers and talents that are latent in the human race, in order that man may ever-increasingly exercise dominion over the lower creation, to the glory of God the Creator” (loc. 10466).

Berkhof goes further and gives us some specifics regarding the means of common grace (loc. 10496). They are:

  • God’s general revelation. He includes under this heading man’s conscience.
  • Civil governments which maintain order, promote good and discourage evil.
  • Public opinion. Which is to say that men care what other men think and will alter their behavior to seek approval or avoid disapproval.
  • Just consequences. Actions often have natural consequences. The child who returns a lost item is rewarded. The teen who engages in bad behavior gets a nasty disease.

Common Grace and Education

When we looked at Van Til on common grace, I drew two  (provisional) conclusions:

  • That one aspect of common grace is the call which goes out, through general revelation, to all mankind and that education functions within this call.
  • That the unregenerate, while not able to do good in the sense of pleasing God, do nonetheless make real contributions to the cause of truth and beauty. God uses what they do, often in spite of themselves, to further His ultimate end.

Neither of these is at odds with Berkhof’s conception of common grace as well. Berkhof’s common grace may be more than this, but it is not less. He speaks both of the call of general revelation (loc. 10485, 10600) and of the role of common grace in working out God’s greater plan (loc. 10466). Berkhof does not refer to education as such. My inclination is to place education under “general revelation” in his list of the means of common grace [1]. Education is largely how we know about general revelation.

I began with two questions. I feel that we have gone a long way towards answering the second — there is real truth and beauty that can come to us through non-Christians sources because God uses them as a part of His larger plan. This is not inherent goodness on their part as without faith they are unable to please God. They may often be unaware or unwitting cogs in His plan. I think we will need to talk more about when and how and if to use non-Christian resources when we get to some of the more practical details of education. For now I am willing to say that we should not reject outright all things that come to us through non-believers but that we must approach them with caution, testing them as we would any new teacher (1 John 4:1-6; for a little introduction to this topic, check out this sermon).

The other question was about our students — Can we present what is good and true to them if they are unregenerate? Are they able to receive what we present and to be educated in any way? We have part of the answer to this — education is subsumed under the call that goes out to all the earth and as such we can and should present it, without prejudice, to all children (indeed, all people), not just to those we know to be saved.

But that it only half an answer; it does not tell us if they are able to receive any of what we present. Of course, we do not know who is among the elect. That is why I say we present education without prejudice — we must not assume this child is saved and that one is not.  That is up to God and does not rely on us or our efforts.

But does education have a beneficial effect, does it make any headway, even among the non-elect? The doctrine of common grace, as Berkhof presents it, would seem to tell us it does. Not that it can produce true goodness but that it can be one of the means God uses to restrain evil.

I have some level of discomfort in saying this. I don’t want us to think that we can educate anyone into being virtuous. If we make virtue our goal — and it is the goal of classical education —  we will go astray. To the extent that education may restrain evil in the non-elect it is not producing real good. That is impossible without saving grace and that it not something we can educate into children.  We desire far more than the appearance of goodness. Ultimately, we desire their salvation and their sanctification. In education, we present God’s general revelation (which is not to say that we don’t also teach the Scriptures of course). There may be some good than comes from this even without saving grace as evil is restrained, but whether that call is effective is beyond us; it is the work of the Holy Spirit to make it take root or not.

Nebby

[1]  Education, especially the education of children, is closely linked with discipline which may in turn be tied to that means which I have called “just consequences.” Parental justice — i.e. discipline — is often the immediate means of divine justice.

 

Common Grace, Part 1

Dear Reader,

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

One of the big questions we have to wrestle with as we seek to build a Christian philosophy of education is how much good, if any, is there in non-believers? This comes up for two reasons–

1) I want an approach to education that works not just for believing children and the children of believers but for all children. If we are going to educate such children, we need to know if they are even capable of recognizing and accepting what is good and true.

2) A lot of what passes for human knowledge comes to us through non-Christians. Can we accept such knowledge and if so, how? How are we to view things that seem good and true but come to us through fallen, unredeemed minds?

The underlying question behind both of these is: How do we reconcile that good that unredeemed men seem to do with the doctrine of total depravity? The answers which are usually given involve the phrase “common grace.”

I came to faith some 25 years ago and to a more reformed understanding maybe 5 to 7 years after that. Along the way I acquired some notion of “common grace” though I honestly can’t ever remember having specific teaching on the topic.  If you’d asked me anytime in the last 20 or so years, the first thing that would have come to mind is “rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous” (my half-remembered recollection of Matthew 5:45). Reformed theology always seemed to say: “Man is fallen and, apart from the saving faith which comes through grace, is incapable of choosing or doing good but common grace means that it is not really quite so.”  This is not a very satisfying explanation but somehow in those 20 or so years I never had cause to push farther and sort it all out. This is me pushing farther.

Among the various books I have been reading on education, Cornelius Van Til’s Essays on Christian Education (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974) has risen to the top as one I keep coming back to. One of the many things I realized reading Van Til’s work is that there is probably a lot more to common grace than I realized:

“Common grace does not overlook ultimate differences  . . .  On the contrary, common grace helps to point out that things which look alike are not ultimately alike.” (Van Til, p. 191)

For Van Til, the goal of education is no less than the fulfilment of God’s original design for Creation (see this post on the goal of education). All things, he seems to say, work towards the end that their Creator originally intended. Education works within that plan. Common grace also works within that plan.

“If God’s gifts of common grace such as ‘rain and sunshine,’ are thus seen as being part of God’s general call to repentance, then believers must also include that in their ‘testimony’ to unbelievers . . . God intends to accomplish his ultimate end, the establishment of his kingdom. That is the reason why you are now able to contribute positively to the coming of that kingdom. The harps you make, the oratorios you produce, the great poems you have written, the scientific discoveries you have made will, with your will or against your will, all find their place in the unified structure of the kingdom of God through Christ.” (Van Til, p.91)

There are two aspects here to common grace: It is part of the general call that goes out to all humanity (Matt. 22:14; Rom. 1:20) and it is the outworking of God’s design for all creation. He uses the unsaved in this plan as He used Joseph’s brothers (Gen. 50:20), Pharaoh (Exod. 7:3), and Cyrus king of Persians (2 Chr. 36:22-23).

Philip Ryken makes a similar argument:

” . . .God accomplishes his gracious purpose in the world even through non-Christians. Their work, their science, and their artistry being some glory to God, even if that is not their explicit intention.” Philip Graham Ryken, What is the Christian Worldview? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2006) p. 36

If this understanding of common grace is correct (and I will revisit it in part 2; these are somewhat provisional answers for now), how would this affect our answers to the two questions above? With regard to the latter — how we are to understand the truth and beauty which seem to come to us through non-Christians — the answer seems to be that they, like Cyrus, are capable of doing “good” insofar as God uses them within the larger framework of His plan. Like Joseph’s brothers, their intentions may not be good, and we know that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebr. 11:6), but to the extent that their works are part of the divine plan they are good because they work to that end. Van Til acknowledges that in both the arts and sciences non-Christians can make real contributions.

The first question was: How can we educate the unredeemed? Is education effective without saving faith? The (again, provisional) answer seems to be that education, as it contributes to God’s overarching plan, is part of that call which goes out to the whole world. By itself, it cannot save, but, like the sower casting his seeds (Matt. 13:1-9), we are to spread it abroad and it is up to God where it shall take root.

I like both these answers. They feel true. But there are some ifs involved — if I am understanding Van Til correctly and if he is giving a reliable picture of mainstream reformed thought. So my next step in this — and what we will cover in part 2 — is to look at some other writers and to see if their take on common grace, and their answers to these questions, follow the same lines.

Until then,

Nebby

The Image of God, Revisited

Dear Reader,

I have had some feedback on my recent post on the image of God so I wanted to expand/give clarification. You  can read that post (which was itself a reworking of an earlier post) here.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty, I’d like to explain a little bit about where this post came from. I think as I write and to some extent each post builds a little on what has come before. If you haven’t read much here previously and/or don’t know me, you are probably not going to have a lot of context. It is very easy as a writer to think that your audience knows and understands what is in your head, but someone who doesn’t know me and hasn’t followed my convoluted train of thought can easily misunderstand where I am coming from.

Until fairly recently I was a Charlotte Mason (CM) style homeschooler and I blogged on her philosophy of education a lot. Over time, I became aware that her theology — upon which her approach to education is directly based — did not line up with mine as well as I thought it did. I ended last year with a series in which I asked the question “Is CM’s philosophy biblical?” My goal at the time was not to judge her by my own standards or those that a reformed person might ordinarily turn to (read: Calvin), but to hold her ideas up to the light of Scripture and also to place her within the scope of orthodox Christian thought. I tell you this now to try to explain how the very first version of this post came about. I looked at the image of God in Scripture specifically (as opposed to looking at what other Christians writers had to say) because my goal was to see how her ideas fit with Scripture. I included a section on Christian ideas about the image of God, not to give a thorough review of the history of thought on this huge topic, but just to give a sense of the range of thought and where she and I fit in.

A lot of Christians have said a lot of things about the “image of God.” Two thousand plus years after the birth of Christ (and many thousand more after the writing of Genesis 1), there is still no one clear definition of what this phrase means. Even within the smaller world of reformed theology, it is not a settled point. Here is what Meredith Kline said in 1999:

“When defining the imago Dei, dogmatic theology has traditionally tended to engage in an analysis of what constitutes humanness. But to answer the general question “What is man?” is not the same thing as answering the precise question “What is the image of God?”. If our objective is to discern what the biblical idea of the image of God is, it would appear necessary to abandon the traditional dogmatic wineskins, go back to the beginning of Genesis, and start afresh.” [Meredith Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory Spirit,” from Meredith Kline.com, 2006 (1)]

Note that Kline calls for us to abandon old concepts, to start afresh and to use the “biblical idea” as our starting place. I had not read Kline when I wrote my post, but this is essentially what I was trying to do.

The big problem with the phrase “image of God” is that we use it to convey two different ideas. Sometimes when we say “man is in the image of God,” we mean that he has inherent dignity and worth. This often comes up in conversations about abortion which makes it quite a heated, emotional topic. At other times when we say “man is in the image of God,” we are saying something about his character or characteristics. This can take different forms. To some the image of God equals a certain faculty or set of faculties such as reason or creativity. To others it means that we are spiritual and/or relational creatures. Or it may be associated with original holiness or righteousness or goodness. It may mean that we were given dominion. Or it may be some combination of these things and more besides. Simply put, it’s confusing because we use the same words to mean very different things.

I said that children are not in the image of God. That was poorly phrased not so much because of the image of God bit as the children bit. First of all it probably put you all in mind of the whole abortion issue which was not what I had in mind (I did make clear at the time that I am anti-abortion).  I said “children” because my overall topic on this blog is education. But in truth what I meant to mean was “unsaved people” or perhaps “man in his post-Fall, pre-saved state” is not in the image of God (I know, I know, you are still bothered but bear with me for a minute; I’m getting back to what bothers you in a few paragraphs). I want to be clear that I do believe in the concept of covenant children, that the children of believers are considered holy. I believe that God can save children at any age, even before birth. So in truth I never meant that all  children are not in the image of God but only those who are unsaved as well as adults who are unsaved.

Returning to the image of God — you remember I said there are two main ways we use the phrase? One has to do with man’s inherent value and one has to do with certain characteristics (however we identify them). My intent was to make a statement about the latter but I was in no way intending to deny the former.

There is an inherent tension between these two ideas. They are linked ideas because they are both tied to this phrase, “image of God,” but they are distinctive. That is largely what I was trying to show when I quoted random Christian theologians — that they all struggled with this tension and that they came up with different ways of trying to address it (again, this was just a general survey intended to give the range of Christian thought). We want to say at one and the same time that:

  • individual people, all people, have value because they are made in the image of God but–
  • people are fallen and something — which we may also equate with the image of God — has been lost or corrupted in them.

The Catholic Church eliminates the tension by distinguishing between the image and the likeness. As I said in my earlier post, I don’t think the biblical text supports this interpretation. The Dutch Reformed speak of the image in a greater and a narrower sense. The narrower was lost; the wider is still present in all people. To some degree they, like the Catholics, are just coming up with two ideas to replace one that seems to contradict itself. “Common grace” is often cited as an explanation (2). The argument goes something along the lines of “yes, man is fallen and no longer has his original righteousness which made him like God, but common grace means that even unregenerate people are still valuable enough that we recognize they mean more than the animals and we shouldn’t kill them.” A similar argument is “corrupted but not lost” which is pretty much what it sounds like — the image of God in man was severely damaged at the Fall but there is enough of his Creator still reflected in man to keep us from killing each other willy-nilly.

If I have been dissatisfied with how Augustine and the Dutch Reformed and others have dealt with the tension, some of you have been dissatisfied with what are apparently my own theological calisthenics. Essentially, what I argued was that the image of God, as the phrase is used in the Bible, refers to some quality or characteristic that was lost at the Fall. I did not mean by this to deny the inherent value of all people but to divorce the two issues. I am not the first by any means to do so. But I understand that it is still a dissatisfying answer because (a) it seems to throw the value of people, particularly the most vulnerable people, to the wind and (b) it seems to ignore the biblical connection between the image of God and the injunction against spilling human blood.

With regard to (a) I will say again that I never doubted the value of each human. Personally, when I think about abortion and other hot-button issues, I have always thought that killing a person is wrong not so much because he is in the image of God as because I have no authority over him.  Compare my child to my pet. One I can kill if I like — I have authority over him because God has given him to me. The other I cannot kill because he does not belong to me. I don’t have that kind of authority over him (3). Nor do I have authority over myself in that way. That’s why suicide is wrong. It’s why I can’t do whatever I like with my body (because it is not mine) and why you can’t do whatever you like with my body. It is an argument from Genesis 1:28, not Genesis 1:26. It also explains why the government can put to death certain kinds of criminals — because God has given it specific authority to do so.

With regard to (b) — the connection the Bible makes between the image of God and not killing each other– I’ll concede maybe I downplayed this a bit too much. But on the other hand, when I read verses like 2 Corinthians 4:4 in which Christ is called the image of God and 1 Corinthians 15:49 which says believers shall bear the image of God, it is hard for me to say that the image is something that all men bear. How can an unregenerate person bear the image of God when the image is Christ and Christ is something believers put on? I suspect that you will say I am being too narrow in my interpretation and that may be the case. But I am willing to say this: It is wrong to kill other people (or do lots of other random bad things to them) because we were all in Adam created in the image of God. However we also all in Adam lost the image of God. The elect regain it in Christ though in an imperfect form in this life.  This is a very corporate view of the image of God which sees us all as being in Adam at Creation and at the Fall. I think it actually fits kind of nicely with the creation account in which God says “let us make man, male and female, in our image” in Genesis 1 but in which Eve is not actually created until Genesis 2. Eve was made in the image of God because she came from Adam. Male and female were both in Adam in Genesis 1:26 though only a male had been created as a stand-alone sort of human being. It is the same for us — we were all in Adam at creation and in that sense we were all created in the image of God.

But perhaps I am still doing too many theological calisthenics — Why, you ask, not just say “corrupted but not lost”? I have been told that my earlier post didn’t seem very reformed, but, honestly, there is something that rubs me the wrong way about “corrupted but not lost.” I don’t want to put words in others’ mouths, but to me “corrupted but not lost” feels less reformed. If what was in us is only tarnished, one might argue, then maybe we don’t need quite as much of a Savior. One need not go down every slippery slope, of course, but it seems we could easily slip into “well, if it’s only corrupted, we can clean it up a bit ourselves” or maybe “we can at least help God out by dusting up a bit around the edges.” Lost makes me feel a lot more comfortable because what is lost we cannot get back on our own.

Summing up then, for absolute clarity (hah!)– Adam was created in the image of God in Genesis 1. Eve and all the rest of us were in Adam at this point and were thus also created in the image of God. It is wrong to spill human blood because we were created in the image in this way and also because we do not have that kind of authority over one another or even over ourselves (governments, however, have been given such authority). Adam, and the rest of humanity in him, lost the image of God at the Fall. Christ is the image of God. Believers put on Christ. We once again bear the image of God and are being transformed more and more into His image.

I’ll end with this — I think as I write but I am not a politician; I have absolutely no problem with changing my mind. I certainly don’t have all of Christian theology worked out. I am happy to have friendly discussions on this or any other topic as long as you approach me directly and respectfully. I raised the issue of what the image of God is and what it means because it relates to the nature of children which relates to education. I do not think, however, that all the fine details here are going to be important to my overall approach to education (which is still being worked out). To me this is somewhat of a subsidiary issue so while I am always happy to discuss theological issues, I don’t intend to spend a lot more time on it.

Nebby

Notes:

(1) I am citing an article from MeredithKline.com because it is what I have access to but the text seems to be identical to the beginning of his book Images of the Spirit (1999).

(2) Because just having one footnote looks bad, I’ll add that in reading Van Til’s book on education recently I was struck by his use of “common grace.” It made me think that I don’t really understand this phrase and that we need a lot more good teaching on it.

(3) Look, a third footnote! Just to clear — I know parents have authority over their children, but they don’t have the kind of authority that allows them to kill their children or to maim them or to do whatever they want with them in a million other ways.

The Purpose of Education, Part 2

Dear Reader,

We don’t need no education; 
We don’t need no thought control.”

(Pink Floyd, “Another Brick in the Wall”)

We are narrowing in on the purpose of education. Last time we talked about the “when” and I made the case that education must be for the long term. Today I’d like to look at the “who” — or perhaps I should say the “for whom?” Specifically we are going to ask: Are we educating primarily for the individual or for the larger society?  Of course, the two are not wholly unrelated; societies are composed of individuals and to change one is to change the other. The question before us is not so much who benefits as where our primary focus lies.

In anthropological terms, education transmits — and  in the process creates– a common culture. As Christians, we limit ourselves if we stop there. The definition tells us one aspect of what education does but it does not tell us what education should do.

What I’d like to propose today is this: While acknowledging that education affects both the individual and the society, we as parents and educators need to keep our primary focus on the individual. This is not something I am going to be able to prove per se, but if you’ll indulge me, I’ll try to convince you that this is the best approach.

Last time I made the case for long-term goals. Education, I argued, is not about equipping children to become part of God’s plan; it is about fulfilling that plan, however we may define it.

If this is the case, then we have to look at the divine plan in order to understand the goal of education. Our question today is: Is it for the individual or for the society? [I am using “society” loosely here. Depending on one’s view of education it might be variously defined. In a Christian context, “society” equals Church. For others, the society might be the state, the nation, the world.]

The answer is really both. God is building His church. In many ways the people of God are a unit. We are the bride — not brides — of Christ (Rev. 21:2; 22:17).  We are both a building and a body (Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 12:12ff). The gospel is often seen to spread community by community as nations (Matt. 28:19) and households (Acts 16:15) are transformed. And yet our God works in such a way that He never overrides the individual. While Jesus and later Paul and the other apostles often preached to large crowds, they never scorned the individual. God speaks to each one (Acts 2:6). Nor is our religion one that calls us to transcend the individual personality. Van Til goes so far as to argue that the goal of education — and of life — is the development of the individual personality:

“In covenant education we seek not to extract the human begin from his natural milieu as a creature of God, but rather seek to restore the creature with his milieu to God . . . A Christian is a true human being once more.” [Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974), p. 143; cf. p. 152]

Personhood is vital to Christianity. There is a corporate goal, yes, but never at the expense of the individual.

In some sense the individual versus corporate tension does not even make sense from a biblical perspective because God orchestrates the small events of one person’s life and the large events of His greater plan in such a way that there is never a conflict or contradiction (Rom. 8:28).

Nonetheless, I am making the case that our goal needs to be primarily individual. The problem is that we are not God. It is much harder for us to balance competing concerns.  If we begin with a societal goal, we end up fitting the individual to that overarching end, cutting or stretching them as need be to suit the greater good. But if we start with the individual, that one person’s good becomes one more brick in the edifice that is the greater good without having to lose its individuality. From God’s perspective, and in His perfect plan, there is no conflict between the individual and the society. But we are not God, and if we set ourselves to shape the society we will tend to run over the individual in the process. If we set ourselves to educate the individual, the benefit to the larger society will naturally follow. As Van Til says:

“It is all summed up in the expression that man must live his life to the glory of God. In seeking the glory of God, man the individual and mankind as a whole will also be enriched.” (Van Til, p. 45)

I am intentionally stopping short of saying what our goal is. Thus far I have argued that:

  • We need a long-term goal that places education within God’s greater plan. Education is not about equipping youth to be able to become part of that plan; they are already bang-splat in the middle of it, as we all are. 
  • On one level, there is no inherent contradiction between the needs of the individual and that of the society because God is able to orchestrate the two perfectly.
  • But we are not perfect, nor do we see the whole picture. Because the tendency if we have societal goals is to override the individual or to try to manipulate him to fit the ends, our goal in education should be primarily focused on the individual.

Nebby

Book Review: Rushdoony’s Philosophy of Christian Curriculum

Dear Reader,

[I apologize if there are weird font things going on in this post. WordPress and I are not on the best of terms this week.]

As a part of my ongoing quest for a reformed Christian theology of education, I recently read Rousas John Rushdoony’s The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon/Ross House Books, 2001; originally pub. 1981). 

This is now the third or fourth book on Christian education which I have reviewed. They were all written some 30-40 years ago, are all quite critical of modern American public schools, and all advocate Christian education as the only way to go, some quite vociferously. Rushdoony’s book falls in line with the others and makes a lot of the same arguments (he quotes Van Til extensively). I do think it is worth adding to your reading list, however. Philosophy covers a lot of ground, and while there are some foundational ideas I disagree with, there are also a number of good points made along the way.

 

Two advantages of Rushdoony’s work are that it deals with the education of children – not just college-level education – and that it begins to delve into specifics. By comparison, Vos and Van Til were much closer to where I am theologically, but they are both concerned with education at the university level. Wiker, though Catholic, makes some great arguments but again seems to focus mostly on the renewal of the Christian university. Dawson, another Catholic writer, is focused on the education of children but (besides being virulently pro-Catholic and anti-protestant) offers little in the way of specifics. Ultimately, what I want is something that provides not just the theory but gives guidance on how we actually teach day to day. (None of these books, including this one, mentions or even considers homeschooling as an option though I am told that Rushdoony was big in the early days of the modern homeschooling movement.)

 

I am not going to be able to cover everything Rushdoony has to say in this one post, though I am sure I will come back to his ideas in the future one. For today, I’d like to focus on his foundational ideas. Before diving in, a few words about the man himself and his thought — Rousas Rushdoony was a pastor and philosopher who seems to have been most active from 1960-1980. On first glance he has a lot to recommend him in my eyes — Calvinist, Presbyterian, pro-homeschooling. He was apparently a big fan of Van Til whose work I find myself quoting a lot. In fact, as I read his book, I wondered what he thought he had to add to Van Til’s work as he quoted him so often. While he wrote on and advocated for Christian education, Rushdoony is known more for his association with the Christian Reconstructionism, a political movement advocating theonomy, i.e.  applying Old Testament law to modern society. Van Til distanced himself from Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism in 1972. [1]

I bring this all up to show where Rushdoony stands in the scope of things. If I could sum up his thought and my own reaction to it in one sentence it would be this: “Yes, he makes a lot of points which sound good on the surface but he just seems to go too far.”  The Wikipedia article on him says:

“Rushdoony developed his philosophy as an extension of the work of Calvinist philosopher Cornelius Van Til. Van Til critiqued human knowledge in light of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. He argued that sin affected a person’s ability to reason . . . Rushdoony attended to the implications – where Van Til held true knowledge came from God, Rushdoony asserted that ‘all non-Christian knowledge is sinful, invalid nonsense. The only valid knowledge that non-Christians possess is ‘stolen’ from ‘Christian-theistic’ sources.’ ” (“Rousas Rushdoony,” from Wikipedia.org; April 20, 2018).

In other words, Rushdoony took Van Til’s ideas to an extreme. In the end, this led him to say that there is no true knowledge can come through non-Christians. While Van Til makes similar statements, he also acknowledges that non-Christians make real contributions to both science and the arts. [2]

Rushdoony’s approach reminds me very much of the Biblical Principle Approach (I have no idea what if any his connection to that approach actually is). It seeks to find the justification for every subject in the Bible and the end of every effort in the service of God, which sounds good, but it defines both these things too narrowly. Certainly the Scriptures are God’s special revelation and tell us the things we need to know for salvation. But they are not God’s only source of revelation. The Bible also tells us quite clearly that God can be known through what He has made. And while the Scriptures are more special, general revelation is more abundant. We do ourselves a disservice when we neglect that knowledge that comes to us through it [3]. I think Van Til would agree with this assessment as he places education within the general call that goes out to all humanity (Matt. 22:14) which Scripture in turn places in Creation (Rom. 1:20) [4]. My first disagreement with Rushdoony, then, is this: He defines education too narrowly by tying it so closely to special revelation at the expense of general revelation. [5]

My second major disagreement is perhaps tied to the first — Rushdoony undervalues knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Though undeniably Christian, his goals for education are overly practical. His concern is with results — How will we use this or that subject to further the spread of the gospel? How can we use it to witness to others? A couple of examples will show his attitude:

“Mathematics should be geared more to management, accounting, and a variety of practical needs of the modern world.” (Kindle loc. 243)

“Latin was once the language of scholarship and an international language; its only value now is to historians and classical scholarship. Green and Hebrew are important to a Christian society, but basically only to the biblical scholarship of that society.” (Kindle loc. 243)

I would argue that if all these things — science and history and language — are part of God’s creation and, as Scripture tells us, reveal His character, then they are worth studying in and of themselves. Our God is a God of truth and to the extent that we learn more of that truth, we become more like Him and bring glory to Him. This is apart from any value that this knowledge may have in our witness to non-believers. I would add that it is not just truth in terms of true facts but the beauty and poetry of creation which merit our attention and study (Phil. 4:8). Rushdoony, in contrast, calls knowledge for knowledge’s sake and art for art’s sake humanistic ideas (Kindle loc. 484).

These, then, are my two major disagreements with Rushdoony: he undervalues general revelation and he undervalues knowledge and beauty for their own sake. I feel less equipped to critique what Rushdoony has to say o n Christian schools since we have never used them, but, as his stance is so forceful, a review of his book would seem incomplete without at least alluding to it.

All of the authors I have looked at this far have advocated for exclusively Christian education and denigrated public education. Rushdoony is among the most extreme in his rejection of public education:

“Hence, for Christians to tolerate statist education, or to allow their children to be trained thereby, means to renounce power in society, to renounce their children, and to deny Christ’s lordship over all life.” (Kindle loc. 2343)

He even argues against Christian schools seeking accreditation (Kindle loc. 1609) and has very particular ideas about how a Christian school should operate.  I find some of what he says disturbing, for example:

“‘Scientific’ tests have indicated that there are racial and sexual differences.” (Kindle loc. 2023)

A brief statement but one that raises my hackles. Rushdoony does not expand upon the racial differences. He does argue for separate education for boys and girls. Some of this may come from considerations of how children learn best, but he also claims that girls are not as capable of abstract thought (Kindle loc. 2032). He stops short of saying that girls need not have higher education but given his overall practical stance, it would not surprise me if he ultimately came to this conclusion. This line of reasoning — a girl’s place is in the home therefore girls don’t need higher education — stems from the same sort of thought Rushdoony does evidence, that knowledge is only valuable for what we can do with it outside of ourselves and not in its own right. 

One of my goals in formulating a philosophy of education is to have something that can be applied to both Christian and non-Christian pupils. A number of the other writers I have read seem to assume Christian children in their schools. Rushdoony does not, but what he has to say about the discipline of children in his (proposed) schools also leaves me with concerns.  I am all for discipline of children and agree with Rushdoony that it should fall under the heading of discipleship. When it comes to practical matters, however, he seems to go too far–

“St. Paul is here describing the necessity under God to purge out delinquents, the sinners. His words apply to every Christian institution, the school as well as the church.” (Kindle loc. 1844)

I will probably write another whole post on the idea of a Christian school. Rushdoony is not the only writer that speaks of the school as a separate, almost divinely-inspired, Christian institution. Whether it is or not (and I expect to argue it is not), I don’t see any reason to apply the passage in question (which is 1 Cor. 5:6-7) to anything but the Church. Then there is the practical question of how such discipline would be applied which Rushdoony does not fully answer. I am left after reading the book with the idea that his school would be rather strict and that its teachers would be a bit distant and not necessarily caring (Kindle loc. 1865).

Despite my differences with Rushdoony, there is still a lot in his book to make it worth reading. He begins with a history of education which provides a nice background. He provides some good criticisms of both classical and modern education, both of which he deems statist, humanistic and secular.  As he gets into specific subjects, he provides us with a starting place for evaluating how to teach them, and he has a number of intriguing statements that I’d like to return to in future posts. So while I have some very fundamental differences, I do think Rushdoony’s Philosophy of Christian Curriculum is one to add to your reading list.

Nebby

[1] Since it is not my main subject, I hope you will forgive me for admitting that most of this background information is from the Wikipedia articles on “Rushdoony,” “Theonomy,” and “Christian Reconstructionism” (all as of 4/20/2018).

[2] Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974) pp. 89-91.

[3]  I would include under general revelation not just what we can observe casually but also what we can know of God through more in-depth investigations into science and history and culture.

[4] Van Til, p. 91.

[5] Re history, Rushdoony says: ” . . .for the Christian historian and teacher, the basic textbook is the Bible” (Kindle loc. 685). And even grammar is tied to the Bible: “Our ideas of grammar, of tense, syntax, and structure, of thought and meaning, bear a Christian imprint. Very clearly, our language and grammar are relative, but relative to a heritage of biblical faith” (Kindle loc. 809). And a general statement: “If the Bible is what it declares itself to be, then it is the most basic book in education” (Kindle loc. 1223) and again: “The sovereignty of God means that our educational standards must be derived from Scripture, not man” (Kindle loc. 2402) and “. . . the Bible must establish, govern, and condition the curriculum, or else we do not have Christian education” (Kindle loc. 2451).

Sabbath Mood Homeschool

Desiring That a Sabbath Mood Rest on Your Homeschool

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

The Common Room

....Blogging about cabbages and kings since 2005.

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

Just Right Porridge

... you'll lick your bowl clean...