Bible Students

A Response to “Teaching Redemptively” by Graham (chapters 19 and 20) and “Exploring the History and Philosophy of Education” by Anthony and Bensen (chapters 13 and 14)

This week both Teaching Redemptively and Exploring the History and Philosophy of Education were very philosophically-minded, mainly relating to anthropology, metaphysics, and epistemology. The following reflection will take a look at some of the most important quotations from this week’s section. 

Teaching Redemptively

“God is speaking to us about Himself through the Bible in a way that is designed to lead to a personal encounter with Him” (Graham 2003, 178). As Christian educators, teachers should not rely on the Bible to be an impersonal explanation of the universe, as one would expect a regular textbook to be. Rather, the teacher must approach the Scriptures as a manual for personal relationship with God, which forms a biblical and Christ-centered worldview, which is then used to explore the universe God has created. Supporting a biblical worldview, spawned out of a right relationship with God, must be the primary effort of the teacher (Oller, 2024 [c and d]). This is supported by Graham later as well when he states, “Rather than seeing the Bible as providing us with the data for Christian scholarship, we should see it as God’s means of giving us a framework for viewing and dealing with all of life” (Graham 2003, 179). 

On psychology in the classroom, Graham writes, “As we enter the often forbidden arena of psychology, we recognize that Christian psychology is possible” (Graham 2003, 180), and holds this in tension with, “Because of our finiteness, we cannot relate to everything as a whole” (Graham 2003, 180). These two ideas must be taken together, and should be applied to the Christian exploration of all different traditionally “secular” fields. Christians are able to benefit from the advancements of secular thinking, but they must do so under the framework of Christian theism. The Christian must stand firm in proclaiming the finiteness of the human mind. No human will ever understand everything, and so the exploration of different subjects must be done in genuine humility. 

“Except over a very narrow field of thinking, chiefly touching questions of strictly personal conduct, we Christians in the modern world accept, for the purpose of mental activity, a frame of reference constructed by the secular mind and a set of criteria reflecting secular evaluations” (Blamires 1978, 3-4). According to Blamires (as expanded upon by Graham), the Christian sphere has attempted to benefit from secular advancements in the past, but has not done so with great success. Christians must take into account secular theories so long as they are compatible with a Christian theistic worldview, and so long as the results can be reasonably extrapolated from the Christian theistic worldview. When a Christian is able to learn from a secular theory after extrapolating the results from a shifted worldview (secular to Christian), they are able to continue the efforts of Christian education. As Graham mentions, “Dealing with subjects in these ways is at least a part of bringing the entire world of academics under the lordship of Christ” (Graham 2003, 183). Christians can rightfully claim secular advancements as tools for the Kingdom, only when they are understood in a Kingdom-minded worldview. 

Students and teachers alike are created in the Image of God and are able to advance the Kingdom through loving their God with their mind. “Thus, the students are also legitimate sources of knowledge and must become factors in designing the curriculum” (Graham 2003, 187). Students should not be considered only ignorant, but creatures made in God’s image and able to genuinely contribute to discussion and advancement of Christian scholarship. 

Graham expands on this by calling students artists and genuine centers of social change, both based on the purpose God has given each individual student. Graham explains, “The arts reflect and influence attitudes and philosophies of life as well as encourage aesthetic responses to the Creator” (Graham 2003, 187) and “The problems and issues of society must be made real to students so they will attend to them in personal ways, seeking to understand just what they must do to live up to their calling. It is their calling, then, that gives them reason to study the disciplines, which should be taught in the context of the societal issues that those disciplines can help us address” (Graham 2003, 188). Both of these demonstrate a student-centered curriculum, which focuses on developing the purpose and image of God in the students, rather than a teacher-centered curriculum, which focuses on the interests and calling of the teacher. 

Graham gives an especially biblical understanding of knowing in the context of Christian education: “Doing was not only the obvious result of knowing but a part of the process of coming to know (Steensma and Van Brummelen 1977)” (Graham 2003, 189). In 1 John 4:8, John explains that the one who does not show love to those around them does not know the Father. Biblical knowledge is gained and expressed through action. Christians who do not love do not truly know the love of the Father. To truly understand the love of the Father (in this context, to truly understand a lesson in the classroom) requires one to live their life in accordance with thier knowledge. 

Exploring the History and Philosophy of Education

This week’s reading of Exploring the History and Philosophy of Education focused mainly on forming one’s own philosophy of education, especially through articulating one’s epistemological and metaphysical understanding of the universe. As a Christian theist, I believe truth originates with God, and because God desires that we gain knowledge of Him, we are able to understand truth, limited by our corruption and finitude (Oller 2024 [g]). By contrast, the secular worldview, when carried out consistently, should not have a basis for understanding truth (Oller 2024, [a]). 

Issues of philosophy are often pushed aside. “Such matters will have to wait until after graduation, when time allows more freedom to pursue such esoteric matters. However, seldom after graduation does life allow these matters to come back on the table for discussion” (Anthony 2011, 381). If one does not make an effort to articulate and create a proper philosophy of education (or any philosophy, for that matter), it will be pushed aside as something not urgent. There is a great difference between that which is important and that which is urgent. The important things are pushed to the side in favor of the urgent things, which is a great danger. As Anthony succinctly puts it, “Life has a way of pushing these topics off the daily schedule” (Anthony 2011, 381).

If philosophy is important, what should be counted as philosophy? “In its narrowest scope, philosophy is simply translated from the Greek to mean “lover of wisdom” (Anthony 2011, 383). Philosophy of education is a framework for understanding what education should be about and how it is done (which are both essentially matters of metaphysics and epistemology). “It’s important to understand that we cannot escape philosophy because it provides the foundation for all that we do in life” (Anthony 2011, 383). Without understanding the “what” and “how” of education, Christian education will be greatly hindered. 

Similar to the classic difficulty of determining the primacy of metaphysics and epistemology (how can one know what there is before how to know it, and how can one know how to know before knowing what there is?) “…philosophy and education cannot be separated because each relies on the other for illumination” (Anthony 2011, 385). 

After considering the “what” and “how” of their teaching, faithful Christian educators “…simply take the time to examine the “why” of their life and ministry” (Anthony 2011, 387). What is the “why” of Christian education? My philosophy of Christian education is to empower students to explore God’s universe. The teacher acts as the one who equips the students in order to foster their desire for exploring God’s universe. Ultimately, the Christian student must have a worldview which seeks to love the Lord (Oller 2024, [c, d, and g]). If the student does not love the Lord, their education will ultimately be for nothing (Oller 2024, [a]). 

For the one who does not seek to explore the “what,” “how,” and “why” of their Christian education, it would be helpful to remind them that “Choices are optional, and ministry occurs without mission, vision, or strategic planning” (Anthony 2011, 404). Ultimately, many ministries and educations are done without a clear reason. This limits the ability for Christian effectiveness. The Lord equips leaders, visionaries, and organizers for the ministry of directing. When these gifts are not used, a ministry will go without direction, and be greatly hindered. Strategic planning and team building are both intensely hindered when spiritual giftings of leadership, organization, and vision casting are ignored (Oller 2024, [e and f]). 

One of the most common non-Christian presuppositions in the area of education is that “Reality and values are centered in the individual and are not universal” (Anthony 2011, 402). This is an anti-biblical view, which does not see truth as being objectively grounded in the Lord. Now, all Christians must acknowledge that their understanding of reality is subjective, and should approach teaching and learning in humility. However, the basis for learning (objective truth) must be in God. Christians must have a robust understanding of reality in order to properly learn. Christians who do not affirm the goodness of creation or effectively deny the spiritual realm both participate in an unbiblical worldview. However, “Whereas idealism recognizes only the mind as the basis of reality and naturalism recognizes only matter, neo-Thomism affirms the dual aspects of reality.” (Anthony 2011, 397). Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest thinkers of Scholasticism (Oller 2024, [b]). A Christian must have a worldview which appreciates both the physical and spiritual aspects of creation. In education, this can involve teaching the unpredictability and difficulty in observing the spiritual realm according to the scientific method. In other words, while scientists should approach science by the scientific method, they must also see that there are unpredictable forces outside of the observable universe that may impact observations. Observations, then, should be taken according to what is normative, and an understanding of mechanical nature should be extrapolated from those normative behaviors of reality, while still acknowledging that an unpredictable spiritual realm may influence reality as well. 

Idealism is one of the understandings of reality which seeks to understand the form (how we understand groupings) of objects. “Described by some people as idea-ism, it holds to the view that a book receives its identity because it is a replica of ‘bookness’” (Anthony 2011, 393). In other words, a book (which is a complete concept) is a reflection of a “true” concept of book. The concept of a “book” is therefore not made up by humans, but is a true abstract idea held outside of the human mind. I do not subscribe to this view of reality, but fall closer to nominalism, which sees the world in the opposite way. In my view, a book is not a reflection of a true abstract idea outside of the human mind, but is only understood as a grouping (of pages, organic material, chemicals, atoms, and quarks) because of the “value” (form) given to it by humans. 

Christians have different ways of understanding the universe, but Anthony claims “We can come to know what is real through three primary means: the scientific method, intuition, and revelation” (Anthony 2011, 397). These three methods are strongly Christian, though they come with some reservations. The scientific method, as mentioned earlier, must be understood in the context of a both material and spiritual universe, where only the physical is predictable according to the scientific method. Additionally, intuition must be understood in light of the corruption and image of God in humanity. Lastly, revelation must be approached with humility, not corrupted by human interpretation, but humbly approached with the Spirit of God. In other words, the one interpreting revelation must also have the Spirit of God, otherwise their corrupted minds likely will not interpret the biblical witness as intended. The intended method for interpreting the Bible is, as mentioned earlier, to do so with a knowledge that leads to action. Interpreting the Bible “correctly” in word but not applying it to their life means they have not truly understood the text. 

Anthony gives two more aspects of Christian education: “Reasoning requires the ability to use words wisely, so the use of language, vocabulary acquisition, and rhetoric are highly valued” (Anthony 2011, 398) and “The primary purpose of the school is neither intellectual nor social; it is to develop free, moral individuals” (Anthony 2011, 403). Christian education should not aim to reproduce robots who repeat the material given to them. Rather, the purpose of Christian education must be to equip Christian students to love God through explroing His universe. 

Another common anti-biblical belief which directly opposes the previous paragraph is one that “…rejects the notion of the autonomy of the individual, tradition and authority as sources of societal influence, and the belief that reason can be pure and objective (although one might not always reason objectively, objective reason is nonetheless an achievable goal)” (Anthony 2011, 404). The authority of Scripture as an extension of God’s authority must be the primary authority for Christian education. Additionally, objective reasoning can never be achieved, as even Christians with the Spirit of God indwelling them are still finite and fallen creatures. Both the finitude and fallenness of creation means they will never achieve objectivity, and have no hope to. 

Finally, in the way of reinforcing the first points of this section, Anthony notes “The second area that should be included in a comprehensive philosophy of ministry includes a discussion of your philosophical foundations” (Anthony 2011, 414). Christian education must be directed and led by a clear mission of equipping Christian students to love God through exploring His creation. The importance in this mission of a Christian theistic worldview can not be stressed enough (Oller 2024, [c and d]). 

Overall, the most important take-away from these two readings is this: Christian education must be directed by a Christian worldview. Apart from this, Christian education will flounder. Christian educators must seek to equip their students for loving God by exploring His universe. When this is done well, Christian students will be encouraged in their faith and develop the skills to explore God’s universe for His glory. Without these presuppositions, education is worthless, and does not lead to the kind of edification which gives efforts eternal significance. 

Works Cited

Anthony, M., Benson, W. S. 2011. Exploring the History and Philosophy of Christian Education: Principles for the 21st Century. Logos ed. 

Blamires, Harry. 1978. The Christian mind: How should a Christian think? London: SPCK, 1963. Reprint, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.

Graham, D. L. 2003. Teaching Redemptively: Bringing Grace and Truth Into Your Classroom. Second ed. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Purposeful Designs Publishing. 

Oller, J. 2024. (a) A Study on Atheistic Naturalism. Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/a-study-on-atheistic-naturalism/.

Oller, J. 2024. (b) Coffee With Medieval Heroes of Apologetics. Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/08/coffee-with-medieval-heroes-of-apologetics/.

Oller, J. 2024. (c) Cornelius Van Til and Theories of Learning. Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/06/cornelius-van-til-and-theories-of-learning/.

Oller, J. 2024. (d) Should my Kids Go to a Private Christian or Public Secular School? Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/should-my-kids-go-to-a-private-christian-or-public-secular-school/.

Oller, J. 2024. (e) Strategic Leadership Planning in the Calvary Chapel Bible College Kitchen. Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/strategic-leadership-planning-in-the-calvary-chapel-bible-college-kitchen/.

Oller, J. 2024. (f) Studies in Team Building in the Calvary Chapel Bible College Kitchen. Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/studies-in-team-building-in-the-calvary-chapel-bible-college-kitchen/.

Oller, J. 2024. (g) What is the Christian Worldview? Seminary Student. https://seminarystudent0.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/what-is-the-christian-worldview/.

Steensma, Geraldine J., and Harro W. Van Brummelen, eds. 1977. Shaping school curriculum: A biblical view. Terre Haute, IN: Signal.