Old School, New Clothes

The Cultural Blindness of Christian Education

Ronald E. Hoch, David P. Smith

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN:
  9781610971614
  9781498259392
• eBook ISBN:
  9781630876074
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Church

Is much of Christian education in America distinctly Christian? Ron Hoch and David Smith say, "No." Instead it is guilty of having adopted an ideology and methodology that strips it of the right to call itself Christian and the ability to fulfill a truly Christian mission. The authors claim that the fundamentally humanistic ideology of the West conditions and controls much of what is labeled "Christian" education. By talking about the need to integrate faith and learning, focusing on teaching methodology, and operating schools in virtually the same way as government-run schools, many Christian academics betray captivity to the dogma that humans are the measure of all things and need to do what God has already done. As a result, much of what controls the conversation and practices in Christian academia echoes the humanistic arrogance of the West, and offers no substantive alternative to it. In Old School, New Clothes, Hoch and Smith issue a call for Christian academics to own up to their own confession--that all reality was created and integrated by God, damaged by sin, and has already been reintegrated in and by Jesus. Thus the emphasis in Christian education ought not to be what Christian educators are doing to redeem the culture, but on what God is bringing to the Church in order to redeem sinners. Only by recognizing that all human knowledge claims in every sphere are inherently theological and that God is truly seen in and experienced through knowledge of all things, will a distinctly Christian education be forged. Christian education must primarily emphasize the reintegration or redemption of teachers brought through right knowledge of Jesus that comes through every subject discipline and expressed in a life balanced on Sabbath, work, and family.

1

Framing the Issue

There are few phenomena in the theological world which are more striking indeed than the impatience which is exhibited on every hand with the effort to define truth and to state with precision the doctrinal presuppositions and contents of Christianity.1

—B. B. Warfield

Defining terms for a discussion or debate is not optional; it will be done. The real question is whether the people involved in the conversation will recognize the definitions they are using and have the necessary abilities and patience to arrive at accurate definitions. People may be unaware of the definitions with which they operate, but they do not do without definitions. Unfortunately, the point that the great Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield made over a century ago (see quote above) has become the general fabric of much of American culture. It has also found a welcome home within much of what identifies itself with the Christian church in America, regardless of theological persuasion. In important ways it corresponds to Neil Postman’s warning nearly thirty years ago that Americans were amusing themselves to death.2 While Postman’s thesis seems axiomatic to some communities, in others it seems to have either fallen on deaf ears or not even been introduced. None of this is surprising to those who know the central flow to Western intellectual history. The basic route to how we arrived at this point will be traversed in the next chapter, so we won’t address it here. For now, we begin with definitions of the most important terms and concepts in this discussion.

What is Integration?

In their “Series Preface: A Call to Integration and the Christian Worldview Integration Series,” Francis Beckwith and J. P. Moreland established the parameters for the IVP series that seeks to help Christian college students “learn about and become good at integrating” their “Christian convictions with the issues and ideas in” their chosen majors and careers.3 They rightly begin by defining the operative term integration. They identify two kinds of integration—conceptual and personal—that are seen from the following definition of the term integrate: “to form or blend into a whole,” “to unite.”4 For Beckwith and Moreland, conceptual integration is when “our theological beliefs, especially those derived from careful study of the bible, are blended and unified with important, reasonable ideas from our profession or college major into a coherent, intellectually satisfying Christian worldview.”5 They define personal integration as our seeking “to live a unified life, a life in which we are the same in public as we are in private, a life in which the various aspects of our personality are consistent with each other and conducive to a life of human flourishing as a disciple of Jesus.”6 Beckwith and Moreland affirm that these two kinds of integration are “deeply intertwined” and that “all things being equal, the more authentic we are, the more integrity we have, the more we shall be able to do conceptual integration with fidelity to Jesus and Scripture, and with intellectual honesty.”7

What is conspicuous in their preface is that integration is defined and approached almost always as something humans do. We would argue that this reflects a fundamental error that both reflects and reinforces confusion on the matter. There may be some legitimacy to the idea that humans engage in some sort of integration. But as a human activity taking place in God’s creation, it can be accurately understood only when viewed as subservient to and defined by the integration that God created. Indeed, precisely because God created all things with an already existing integration, or harmony, it only confuses the matter when the term integration is used, first and foremost, as something humans do. Though we are not calling for the wholesale rejection of the use of the term to refer to something humans do, we would, at the very least, call for an approach that identifies integration in the intellectual realm as something humans, first and foremost, discern. Certainly we are to bring our thoughts into conformity with an already existing integration, so in that sense we can be said to integrate our thoughts with reality, or to do integration. However, getting the epistemological and historical order accurate here is no small thing precisely because the metaphysical belief that drives so much of the unbiblical thinking and living in the West reverses this order. It is in fact the relationship between what is going on internally with humans in their knowing and thinking and its relationship to what is external to us that is the fault line upon which one either embraces biblical thinking, or the Kantian (neo-Kantian) relativism controlling much of Western culture.

We concur with William D. Dennison:

Christ’s exhaustive and infinite wisdom creates, understands, interprets, and maintains the coherent wholeness of all things. This Biblical view of Christ’s sovereign position as Creator underscores the comprehensive and coherent nature of his person and task as he brought all things into existence. . . .This integrative wholeness defines the context of the first male and female human beings (Gen 1:26–30). With integration as the given, the First Adam enters into differentiation (Gen 2:20). This constitutive relationship between integration and differentiation cannot be overstressed.8

Indeed, it cannot. It is also why it is right to say that theology is a constituent part of every branch of human knowledge. This is why years ago B. B. Warfield, while using the term sciences to refer to the various branches of human knowledge, stated the following regarding theology and its relationship to all branches of human learning:

It [theology] is not so far above them, however, as not to be also a constituent member of the closely interrelated and mutually interacting organism of the sciences. There is no one of them all which is not, in some measure included in it. As all nature, whether mental or material, may be conceived of as only the mode in which God manifests Himself, every science which investigates nature and ascertains its laws is occupied with the discovery of the modes of the divine action, and as such might be considered a branch of theology. And, on the other hand, as all nature, whether mental or material, owes its existence to God, every science which investigates nature and ascertains its laws, depends for its foundation upon that science which would make known what God is and what the relations are in which He stands to the work of His hands and in which they stand to Him; and must borrow from it those conceptions through which alone the material with which it deals can find its explanation or receive its proper significance. Theology, thus, enters into the structure of every other science. 9

This is where we can begin perhaps to see the basis of the problems regarding the whole project of integration, as that project is conceived and tackled by many within American Christian education. There is a failure to recognize the reality of the God-created, organic integration, and then think and act in accordance with that living organic integration. Notice that Warfield referred to the organism of the sciences.10 Human knowledge and education are only rightly understood when we identify them as living organisms. We must therefore treat them and function within them in accordance with this living or organic character that has its existence, governance, and fulfillment in and through the Triune God. This has far reaching implications for how Christians ought to understand and function within educational endeavors.

Metaphysics, Kant, and the Worldview Concept

Metaphysics is the study of reality. Along with the topics of theology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics, it forms an important part of everyone’s worldview. These five subjects are the way in which Ronald Nash categorized everyone’s worldview. Nash defined worldview as “a conceptual scheme in which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality.”11 This is not the only way to define the term worldview, but it captures all the essential features necessary for understanding the worldview concept. The term worldview, or the German weltanschauung, as best as can be discerned was first used by Immanuel Kant in his The Critique of Judgment in 1790.12 But as David Naugle rightly explains, the term was soon used to “refer to an intellectual conception of the universe from the perspective of a human knower.”13 Kant appeared to use the term only once, but since it was joined to his view of knowledge that emphasized “the knowing and willing self as the cognitive and moral center of the universe” the worldview concept was used by his successors in European intellectual life to advocate a view of knowledge that was not primarily concerned to understand what the objects of knowledge are in and of themselves, but what they seem to be to us. In other words, in this theory of knowledge the individual’s personal perceptions of reality came to be the most important thing to consider when thinking about knowledge.14 One of the consequences of this was that it was not simply the differences in people’s perceptions of reality that came to be important but their willfully taking control of the object of knowledge so that their conclusions about it corresponded to what they wanted.15 Unfortunately it is this Kantian, or its neo-Kantian modification, that controls not only the basic orientation to reality and knowledge in the West in general, but also much of the talk about integration among Christian educators.16

To approach the relationship between faith and learning, or theology and the knowledge of any subject discipline primarily from the perspective of needing to integrate them is to speak of these realities in a profoundly Kantian way. Faith and learning do not need to be integrated they are integrated.17 We discern an already existing integration; we do not so much do integration as discern it. The terminological difference is very important. We need to learn how faith and learning are related. This is not simpl...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Framing the Issue
• Chapter 2: Surveying Historical and Theological Currents
• Chapter 3: Man and the Integrated Universe
• Chapter 4: The Noetic Effects of Sin
• Chapter 5: The Teacher Is the Class
• Chapter 6: The Blind Leading the Blind
• Chapter 7: Sabbath: Resting in Time
• Chapter 8: Work: Reordering Responsibilities to the World
• Chapter 9: Family: A Teaching Affair
• Unscientific Postscript
• Appendix
• Bibliography