Christ and Education

As I have recently accepted a teaching position at a local Christian school, I have been giving much thought to this subject. How should education be effected by our worldview? If Christ is truth as He claims in John 14:6, then doesn't He have something to say to us about education? As I say at the top of this blog that God supplies for us Total Truth, it should then mean that our view of education should be, no must be, effected by this Truth.

Listen to Francis Schaeffer's words on this issue:

"If truth is one, that is if truth has unity, then Christian education means understanding, and being excited by, the associations between the disciplines and showing how these associations are rooted in the Creator's existence. I do not know if you know what you are hearing or not. It is a flaming fire. It is gorgeous if you understand what we have in the teaching and revelation of God. If we are going to have really a Christian education, it means understanding truth is not a series of isolated subjects but there are associations, and the associations are rooted in nothing less than the existence of the Creator Himself."

"True Christian education is not a negative thing; it is not a matter of isolating the student from the full scope of knowledge. Isolating the student from large sections of human knowledge is not the basis of a Christian education. Rather it is giving him or her the framework or total truth, rooted in the Creator's existence and in the Bible's teaching, so that in each step of the formal learning process the student will understand what is true and what is false and why it is true or false. It is not isolating students from human knowledge. It is teaching them in a framework of the total Biblical teaching, beginning with the tremendous central thing, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It is teaching in this framework, so that on their own level, as they are introduced to all of human knowledge, they are not introduced in the midst of a vacuum, but they are taught each step along the way why what they are hearing is either true or false. That is true education. The student, then, is an educated person. I just say in passing, John Harvard understood that when he founded Harvard University. It was founded with this whole thing in mind. The student, then if he is taught this way, is an educated person, who will have the tools to keep learning and enjoy learning throughout all of life. Is life dull? How can it be dull? No, a true education, a Christian education, is more than the negative, though that is there. It is giving the tools in the opening the doors to all human knowledge, in the Christian framework so they will know what is truth and what is untruth, so they can keep learning as long as they live, and they can enjoy, they can really enjoy, the whole wrestling through field after field of knowledge. That is what an educated person is. "

This is an awesome statement by Schaeffer. As Christians, we should not fear to approach and interact with any and every field of knowledge. Why? Because we have real truth. Not only is our truth real, it is complete. I don't think we grasp and really hold on to the magnitude of the concept of creation. If God created, then in reality He is the creator of all fields of knowledge. This, in truth, is not the way in which most education is done. Typically, a student picks a field of knowledge. He then proceeds to concentrate on this area and becomes specialized in this field. Once education is completed, we have produced a scientist (for example) who can rest from his quest for knowledge because he has become an "expert." Unfortunately, many lack the ability to integrate science into all other fields of knowledge. So, what we are left with are mere facts that lack real points of contact. Knowledge is random. But, we, as Christians, know that God is ordered. How do we know that? Look at creation. It is complex, yet shows many signs of order. How about special revelation? For instance, the Bible is God's special revelation to us. It has been given in the form of language, which is by its very nature ordered. Sentences have structure. Words have meaning. So, it is apparent, at least to me, that God reveals truth in an ordered way. Since this is true, all knowledge is from God and is ordered in Him. Therefore, a Christian scientist should feel just as comfortable making a statement about a historical event or history in general. But, the fact of the matter is that our society (intentionally or unintentionally) is creating individuals with an incomplete education with insufficient knowledge, which makes them truncated people. Unless we realize that God's truth effects all knowledge, we will continue to produce partial people who lack true education. As Schaeffer says, our framework of knowledge (creation, fall, redemption) allows us to understand all history or science or mathematics or literature. This truth should do, at least, two things for the learner. First, it should make education a joyful pursuit and an act of worship because we are plumbing the depths of the God who holds all knowledge and truth in His being. So in our learning, we are in actuality plumbing the depths of God Himself. In seeking knowledge, we are seeking the Creator of that knowledge. Second, it should produce life-long students. Since we are able to proceed with confidence into all fields of knowledge, we ought to go headlong toward knowledge and education.

The rest of the above referenced article can be found here. For a powerful and fuller explanation of Schaeffer's thoughts, read Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth.

All to God's Glory

The past week I spent my days working with young people. We worked with an infant church plant in White Plains, NY aptly named Christ the King. The work was fruitful. We were able to make over 1,000 contacts for the church. We were blessed by God's awesome working to see 3 salvations (please pray for Paul, Jeremy, and Tyrelle).

As leader of the mission trip, I attempted to impress on the youth two things that ought to drive us as we share the life-changing message of Christ. First, I shared the message of our purpose in life. Why should we even care about others? Why should we seek to give to others and serve them? The answer, I believe, lies in a brief passage at the beginning of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27. The mark of God, His image, on each life makes every person valuable in God's eyes. It is this image that is the redeemable part of us. No matter how scarred the life. That image still exists. No matter how hard someone tries to deny the mark of God on their life. It will continue to be there. We are all image-bearers. So, I shared that we ought to treat every person in that way. Rich or poor. Black or white. Muslim or Christian. There is something redeemable in each of us. This should be the driving force behind all mission endeavors. This is whole point of Christ's coming, His life and death and resurrection. He came to redeem the image of God in those who would believe in Him. The reason the Gospel proper (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) gives hope is because Genesis 1:27 came before it. Without it, there is nothing to redeem, no reason to reconcile.

The second thing I attempted to explain to them is the difference between good and best. Our primary passage was 1 Corinthians 10:31. We talked about glorifying God in everything we do. We discussed the scope of this passage. Obviously, this particular scripture has broad implications. It touches and molds every part of our lives. But, the focus that evening was to understand that doing good does not necessarily equal doing what is best. I shared with them an experience where this was particularly true in my own life. The pastor of my church came to me around the first week of March and offered me the opportunity to take the youth on this trip. I spent the next two or three weeks praying and thinking about what I ought to do. My wife, who is 29 weeks pregnant, encouraged me to go. However, I expressed my concerns about leaving her during this point in her pregnancy. Finally, I decided that I would have to say no and take care of my wife. Seemingly, this was a good decision. In my mind, I was fulfilling God's command to care for my wife. As church ended one Sunday night, I was about to approach our pastor and tell him of my decision to stay home. Before I told him, I told Julie my decision. She proceeded to cry and tell me that I was making the wrong decision. I was, of course, taken aback by this show of emotion. After we talked a few more minutes and then prayed, I accepted this responsibility. Now, I realize that Julie was simply desiring the best for my life. She knew that my best for God would only come as a result of me going. Wanting to stay and care for her was wrong in only one way. The motivation behind it was selfishness. I wanted to do it because that is what I wanted and it would make me happy. In other words, if we do things for our sake (no matter how good they are), we can't do them for God's sake. The best is when we do something of the sake of God and Christ and His message.

This week served to show me much about myself, but the most important thing I learned is the best is always infinitely better the good.

To God be the glory!!

The Calvinist Debate at the SBC

One of the highlights of the convention this year in Greensboro was a debate between Paige Patterson and Al Mohler. Patterson, decidedly not Calvinistic, and Mohler, a five-pointer, agreed that this issue should not split the convention. In fact, they argued that, despite their differing views, they appreciated each others ministry and desire for the lost of the world.

If you are interested, here is a synopsis of the debate:

Patterson and Mohler

While I am not a five-pointer, I do tend to lean in a more Calvinistic direction. I was particularly struck by Patterson's stance that "man is totally free." It seems difficult to affirm a central Baptist doctrine, perserverance of the saints, if one takes this position. In order to be consistent on this point, Patterson must be willing to say that man gives up his freedom when he enters into union with Christ. Otherwise, it would seem that since man is TOTALLY free then he is fully capable of turning away from salvation. This, to me, would frustrate the will and sovereignity of God.

Hail to the Chief

The Southern Baptist Convention elected a new president today. Frank Page received a majority of the votes at 50.48%. His win was probably a mild upset.

Here is the story:

Give it up for the new Prez

Me...

This is me and my wife.

Mohler on Divorce

Here is a wonderful commentary on the problem of divorce in Christian circles:

Are evangelical Christians lacking in credibility when dealing with the question of marriage? This is a serious charge, but it is gaining traction. When evangelicals argue against same-sex marriage, some ask why evangelicals are apparently quite comfortable with divorce and remarriage -- serial marriages.

This acceptance of divorce is not universal among conservative Christians, of course. But it is embarrassingly widespread. When I talk, preach, and write about divorce as a matter of grave moral consequence, I receive a barrage of letters and comments about judgmentalism. Let's just set the record straight: A church that upholds a biblical vision of marriage is a church that cannot tolerate the divorce rates that mark the Christian community.

The issue of credibility was thrown at me recently by a secular journalist, who directed me to the April edition of GQ magazine [formerly Gentlemen's Quarterly]. In that issue, writer Walter Kirn contributed a very interesting article on the sexual abstinence movement among Christian young people, especially as seen in the lives of two young men at Biola University.

Now, Walter Kirn is a very creative and interesting writer. He is the author of quirky novels like Thumbsucker and Mission to America. Previously, he has described evangelical Christians as living in a "complete parallel universe" apart from the larger culture.

In "Saving it for Jesus," Kirn takes his shots at the abstinence movement, but also writes with a measure of genuine respect. The strangest part of his article concerns Stephen Arterburn, co-author of Every Man's Battle and Every Young Man's Battle (and a whole series of books on various battles against lust). Arterburn and his books are very popular among evangelical young people -- especially young men -- and he is celebrated as an advisor on battling lust and saving sex for marriage. Walter Kirn finds this somewhat amusing:

As my meeting with Arterburn is winding down, I notice a photo on a desk of a fresh-faced blond knockout I take to be his daughter. He corrects this impression: She's his third wife, Misty. She's in her early thirties, he informs me; he met her a few years back at one of his seminars, they corresponded through e-mail for a while, and he's been married to her for nine months. She's also pregnant with their first child.

"Way to go, dude!" I want to tell him, profoundly impressed by this preacher of chaste thinking who's also managed to land what seems to be a veritable harem's worth of luscious ladies."

As Kirn later relates, Arterburn was divorced from his (second) wife after "twenty difficult years" of marriage. Kirn also states that Arterburn was afraid that he might lose his evangelical readership over the (second) divorce, but that apparently has not happened. He then went on to marry Misty, pledging that he did wait until they were married to have sex -- something he did not do in his first two marriages.

In an article published after his divorce, Arterburn wrote about his shock over the divorce and his concerns about his influence:

I'd been speaking and writing about the fact that we're all messed up for some time. But now I had a chance to live it. All of my past struggles were just that--in the past. This was happening now and I had an opportunity to walk through it with others struggling with divorce or some other trauma. Embracing the divorce and walking right into it meant I was truly stepping off any kind of pedestal I'd crafted for myself, and connecting with people in a more authentic and personal way.

There is nothing to indicate whether this refers to his first or second divorce, though presumably it refers to the second. What does he mean when he writes of "embracing the divorce and walking right into it?" I am not sure of all he means here, but the words sure look like a therapeutic argument for turning the divorce into a growth experience of some sort.

Evangelicalism is on thin ice on so many fronts. On the issue of marriage, we do indeed have a credibility crisis. A big one.

Maybe...

Maybe this time I will actually post on my own blog. The purpose of this blog is to show the truth of Christ's more excellent way and how it relates to all aspects of daily life.