GREENVILLE
PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
BOOK
REVIEW: FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
Thomas
Booher
AT 41 Christian
Education
November 7,
2015
Although
Foundations of Christian Education is a collection of addresses
delivered in the 1920’s and 1930’s by Louis Berkhof and Cornelius Van Til, they
translate well onto the written page, and the essays remain valuable today because
they demonstrate the need for and basis of Christian schools and Christian
education from a Reformed worldview. Today, just as when these addresses were
given, Christians often take lightly the calling to educate their own. This
short book describes what Christian education should look like by giving a theological
basis for it and by giving practical guidance on how to implement it. The first
“section” of the book discusses the necessity and distinctiveness of Christian
education from the Reformed perspective. The second (and final) part lays down
the doctrinal foundations for Christian education. These two sections will be
examined in turn, beginning with Van Til’s essay in section one, Berkhof’s in
section one, Van Til’s three essays in section two, and finally, Berkhof’s two
essays in section two.
Van Til: Section One
Van Til’s essay in section one stresses the antithesis
that is necessarily involved in education. This antithesis is one between
Christian education and non-Christian education, or more basically, the
antithesis between the presuppositions of the believer versus those of the
unbeliever. Van Til focuses on three areas of antithesis: the field of
educational philosophy; the field of the curriculum (what is to be taught); and
the child being instructed.[1] Godless
education has an eternal universe and finite god, and Christian education has a
finite universe but eternal God. Therefore, in the Christian scheme, man is a
responsible moral agent to God, and all creation is unified and orderly because
the God who made it is unified and orderly. This is not the belief in
unbelieving education. Christian education wants to lead the student to God;
godless education has nothing back of the universe to appeal to and is left
with only pragmatic motivations for inquiring. Christians believe that God has
revealed Himself to man, not just in Scripture, but in all creation, and
therefore a pursuit and study of anything is ultimately a pursuit and study of
God. Non-Christian education can make no such claim, and therefore often fails
to see any interconnectivity between one field of study and another.
Van Til notes that non-Christian education is
man-centered at heart, while Christian education, though not man-centered at
root, is man-centered in the sense that creation was made for man to rule over
as an act of worship and service to God. Thus, man’s duty is to learn about and
subdue the earth in order to rightly utilize it to glorify God. The unbeliever
views the universe as impersonal, making laws and facts exist of themselves rather
than being expressions of the will of an eternal, personal being.[2]
This produces lifelessness in educating children, where the universe is
depicted as cold, empty, and disconnected from humanity. Education becomes a
means of getting away from God rather than finding Him everywhere and in
everything. Because there is no God who unifies all reality, secular education
paints reality to be irrational, unable to be harmonized, and charges those who
say otherwise with conceit.[3]
So then, what is the center and focus of secular
education? Secularists are not sure. By jettisoning God from the equation, they
have not found a “god” adequate to replace Him and accommodate for all the
facts of reality and history. Van Til says that functional education has
replaced conceptual education; education is no longer about imparting
information, knowledge, or wisdom, but rather intends to prepare the
personality to adjust to the environment in which it exists.[4] Van
Til states that it is self-contradictory to teach children to prepare for their
environment when it is said that the environment is mysterious and unknowable.[5] Yet
Christian education is armed and ready to teach what is “out there” and can
also unify the universe because God is the unifying Creator of all things. It
follows that Christian educational philosophy, policies, and curriculum must
always keep this antithesis in mind, and anything that cannot be harmonized
with a Christian-theistic pattern of education must be rejected from the outset
in Christian educational methodology.
Regarding curriculum, Van Til lays down a few ingredients
that must always be present in Christian education. He is emphatic that facts
are not viewed equally by all men alike. Facts do not exist of themselves, but
are always theistic facts, and God always interprets the significance and
meaning of facts. Two plus two does not equal four because of a brute fact, but
because God has structured math in that fashion. Van Til says, “The ground for
the necessity of Christian schools lies in this very thing, that no fact can be
known unless it be known in its relationship to God.”[6] Even
math equations, says Van Til, are laws that express something of the very being
of God, a reality which a child in the eighth grade should already have some
comprehension of. Van Til states that Christian education must also stress that
all things are the believer’s, that the Christian man only takes his rightful
place at the center of the curriculum when nature is connected to history, and
that secular history is connected to sacred history. Only then can every fact
be brought into relation with God and education become concrete rather than
abstract.[7]
This is the atmosphere that makes Christian education so valuable, and it is
this atmosphere that secular education has dismissed from the outset.
Van Til claims that the result of secular education has
led the curriculum to be subjected to the child, rather than the child being
subjected to the curriculum. This is meant to produce individualism and
personality in the pupil, but it destroys the very foundation of education. Christian
education subjects the child to the curriculum by leading the child to see God
in all areas of study, and in finding God the child finds his or her true identity
and personality. Secular education has an unknown universe which is contorted
by their curriculum in an effort to meet the needs of the individualism of each
child, rendering the purpose and meaning of the child’s individualism indiscernible.
“To have knowledge at all, both the knower and the known must be in contact
with God. Only through God can the two be brought together.”[8]
Since all is relative and the universe is not coherent, this calls into
question the authority of the teacher to even make absolute truth claims. While
the authority of the secularist erodes, the authority of the Christian teacher
is bolstered by the infallible authority of God, who made all things to reveal
Himself and to be understood by His people.
Berkhof: Section One
Berkhof
looks at secular approaches to education; the Reformed perspective on
education; and the Christian school and education. Berkhof begins by denouncing
support for a nationalized and free public school system supported on a
utilitarian basis. Berkhof counters the belief that a school unified on
nationalism is best for a given country by saying that a school unified on true
religion will bear the greatest blessing on any given nation among its
citizens.[9] He
turns his attention to the secular idea that children are inherently good, not
sinful, and only prone to imperfections. Secularism will not teach children
that he or she is sinful, nor will it teach the truthfulness of one religion
over another. Echoing Van Til’s sentiments about education in general, Berkhof
says, “It is only in the light of Scripture that we can give a true
interpretation of God’s revelation in nature, and it is therefore to the Bible that
we must turn for guidance.”[10]
Berkhof addresses the matter of who is responsible
for educating children, and asserts that it is the parents of the children,
primarily. He cites Scripture to support this, but also mentions that Athens
and the Romans prioritized the family in instructing its children. If parents
believe that they need the help of others to instruct their children, those
called in to help should see themselves as loco parentis (in the place
of the parents). Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 4, and Psalm 78 all call upon parents
to instruct their children, not the state.
One cannot truly educate by ignoring, or denying, that
the pupil is made in the image of God. As an image bearer of God, the child is
a unity, and in education the head and heart must go together. Berkhof says
that the Christian home is waning in its influence and identity, and given the
church can only devote a few hours of training to its children each week, the
Christian school is the most important educational agency at present. Yet
Christian families have left their children to secularized education, meaning
that “America is today reaping in its churches what it has sown in its schools.
It has sown through the secularized schools, and it is reaping a purely
naturalistic religion.”[11]
Berkhof declares that a truly Reformed believer cannot
denigrate the need for Christian schools without simultaneously compromising
his religious convictions. The objections by Christians to Christian schools often
centers on cost and Americanism, showing where their true allegiances lie.
Berkhof scoffs such advocates, claiming they all but say, “Seek ye first
America, and all other things will be added unto it.”[12] He
wonders just how much a secular, state school will really tolerate
Christianity, even in a nation that is sometimes considered Christian.[13] He
argues it is wrong to try to force sectarian, Christian doctrines and
principles in a state-run school that is supported by tax payer’s money. The
need is not a Christianized secular school, but a thoroughly Christian,
Christian school. Berkhof concludes that Christians must support Christian
schools, fund them, and send their children to them out of a sacred duty to
educate their children in the ways of the Lord, to nurture them in the
covenant, and to see them bear righteous fruit as they mature.[14]
Van Til: Section Two
Having
examined the needs and distinctions of a Christian education, Van Til now
addresses doctrinal foundations of Christian education, examining creation,
faith, and eternal life. Van Til’s doctrinal argument is that creation is the
presupposition of the covenant idea, and that while many Christians today will
defend creation for the sake of preserving biblical soteriology, their scope is
too narrow. Creation encompasses all of life, including God’s covenant with
man. Defending creation as the presupposition of the covenant is the truly
Reformed perspective of Christian, covenantal education.[15] Man
is prophet, priest, and king, called to think God’s thoughts after Him, and in
such a framework Christian education must be defended. Christian education is
based on the covenantal idea, and the covenant is involved in creation, which
in turn involved God creating, and if God did not relate man to creation and
creation to man, man’s life would be meaningless. Creation was intended by God
to be ruled by man, who is also created. God covenanted with man, telling man
to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it. This multiplying
and subduing, this exploring and cultivating, this life-long learning and working
two-step, was to be done in covenant with God, not apart from Him. Because
God is Creator, he is the interpreter of all reality, and because man is in
covenant with God, he can interpret reality in light of what God has revealed
to him. Because God is behind all things, rationality stands supreme; but for
the secularist, the source of all is chaos, irrationality, and from the root of
irrationality secular education seeks in vain to produce some fruit of
rationality and truth.
Plato and
others elevated man as co-eternal with God, and made man an independent
interpreter of reality apart from God. The eternal and what was “right” was
elevated above God Himself. Once Kant came along, a synthesis occurred where
thought was now seen to be “creatively constructive,”[16]
that is, thought itself, the human mind, imposes order, rationality, and
significance upon all things. The mind of man takes the role of the mind of
God, and becomes supreme. Human thought is no longer seen as something created
by the creator. Man is on par with God, and the rules that man must submit to
are the same to which God must submit. In the end, the doctrine of creation, as
understood by Christianity, is obliterated. God and man either both stand
outside of all authority, or are both under an unknown authority, an intuition
of sorts, or something discovered in the vast unknown. This void, created by
the universe, has become God. All that remains is flux; all reality is
temporal, and this is the evolutionary and pragmatic bent of John Dewey and the
modern educational system.[17]
With this view of education, one wonders what place education has, since there
is nothing timeless to be discovered and grasped. Christian
education must remind its pupils, and the world, that the good is good because God
wants it, and God wants it because it reflects His very being. True thought is
receptive and reconstructive, not creative. It receives revelation from God,
both special and general, and thereby learns by thinking God’s thoughts after Him.
Christianity itself, then, is a restorative religion. Christ came to seek that
which was lost, and to restore the image of God in lost sinners, so that they
could once again serve as redeemed saints, being fruitful and multiplying,
filling the earth and subduing it. It is a Christian education that teaches us
how to rightly understand creation by teaching us about God, man, and creation,
and these three are held together through Christian education showing God’s
purposes for man to cultivate creation for His glory. In light of this, Van Til
says, “It is as impossible to oppose Christian education and be genuinely
interested in human culture as it is to deny human culture and be interested in
Christian education.”[18] Van
Til beautifully describes the consistent Christian philosophy of education as
one that doesn’t fall into individualistic revivalism but rather sees the
all-encompassing nature of God’s covenant with man; he argues that covenant
education does not “extract the human being from his natural milieu as a creature
of God, but rather [restores] the creature with his milieu to God,”[19] proving
that the Sunday School, catechism, and church are insufficient for our
educational purposes because it restricts the restorative characteristic of
Christianity by jettisoning the physical, salvaging only the spiritual when
both were meant to always be joined in harmony.
If Christian education has such a high and lofty calling,
how can it be implemented when the world, including Christians, is full of sin,
and the mindset of the people is far removed from the covenant? The answer is
faith. Van Til urges obedience to the plan God gave man when He placed him in
paradise and patience as he labors to fulfill this plan under the weight of sin
and temptation by the devil. Finally, we must have the hope of faith, trusting
that man will indeed complete God’s purpose for him in the end, even though it
does not seem so presently.[20]
God’s purpose for man is nothing less than seeing the kingdom of God realized
on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10), and as man fulfills this purpose, he
comes to the height of being an image-bearer of God. Non-Christian thought
finds such claims for education and the purpose of man to be far too grandiose,
too lofty, because it believes that evil is natural, inherent, and eternal. But
the great hope of the Christian faith is that evil will one day be no more, and
even now Christian education seeks to fight against the forces of evil, both
within the believer and outside the Christian camp.
Van Til says that the heart of Christianity is the
glorious reality that God’s program for man is being realized in spite of sin.[21] Secular
education has no conception of a program for man and the universe. It is all by
chance, and there is no such thing as real progress or culmination. But in the
book of Revelation one discovers that the glory of the nations is brought in to
the New Jerusalem, and this glory is all that mankind has accomplished in
obedience to the program God has given man to complete. Therein lies the hope
of faith. In light of this, Van Til says that Christian education is not only
good for this life, but is also a great foundation for the life to come. He
says the Christian educator can be bold and confident because Christian
education is the only true education, that all other education is irrational to
the core, and because of that it cannot and will not win.[22] Christian
education, then, is the only education that is fit for a covenant child.
Van Til’s last essay shows the telos of an education
based on godlessness and the telos of education based founded upon the God of
Scripture. The godless education produces diminishing returns, and as their
foundation is chaos, they fail to make sense out of anything they teach, and
what beauty was seen in the beginning fades into oblivion. The only thing that
the secularist can try to cling to is not the beauty of holiness, but the
holiness of beauty,[23] by
which Van Til likely meant base, carnal pleasures -- individuality. One either
has to embrace the chaos, the lack of harmony, and get a short thrill out of it
until he is absorbed back into it, or simply choose to end his life and be
absorbed right away. Secular education promotes evolution, advancement, but has
no firm ground to stand on by which to climb up to some higher, more glorious
peak. “The present-day scientist is often not the humble seeker after truth but
the militant preacher of a faith, and the faith that he preaches is the faith
of agnosticism.”[24]
By contrast, Van Til concludes that the full-orbed Christian life is life with
God, which the Christian has right now through the Spirit and will have in full
when Christ returns. Because of God and His purposes for man and creation, man’s
life has meaning now, and this reality must be stressed and foundational in a
thoroughly consistent Christian educational system.
Berkhof: Section Two
In Berkhof’s first essay in section two, he emphasizes
the importance of the covenant of grace for Christian education. He bewails the
fact that most Christians in his day are largely ignorant of the covenant and
its meaning in general, much less its importance for Christian education (this
sad reality remains true today). Berkhof gives a brief definition of the
covenant of grace as “that gracious compact or agreement between the offended
God and the offending sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in
Christ and the sinner accepts this believingly.”[25]
Berkhof describes at length how, in this covenant, God is infinitely greater
than man, and man has no authority to barter or protest against any commands or
arrangements that God imposes upon him. This is because God is creator of all,
including man, and because man is sinful and has forfeited his life.[26] God
was gracious in the covenant of works made with Adam, but vastly more so in the
covenant of grace made with sinful man through the blood of Christ. Through
Christ, believers brought into the covenant of grace are adopted as children of
God, and as adopted sons, they become heirs of all that is God’s, which means
they become heirs of all things. These covenant promises are seen in Scripture
to be for believers and their children (Acts 2:39). Therefore the
children of believers are to be seen as heirs of all things, and it is the duty
of parents and Christian educators to prepare these children to be good
stewards and faithful servants to their heavenly Father.
When parents bring their infants to be baptized, they are
acting on behalf of their children and are declaring that they belong in the
covenant and in fact are in the covenant of grace. This means a baptized child
already has covenant obligations that he or she must keep, and parents have
obligations to diligently educate and rear their children in the instruction of
the Lord, being confident that God in time will grant their children a clean
heart and willing spirit.[27] In
light of all that it means to be a covenant child, Berkhof sarcastically asks
if one can seriously question whether or not a Christian education is necessary
for covenant children. “Let us ever be mindful of the fact that the King’s
children must have a royal education.”[28] Berkhof
also argues that Christian education teaches covenant children how to properly
express gratitude and cultivate all that they have inherited as heirs of
Christ. Even more basically, Christian education actually informs the child
that they are rich in the Lord and have inherited the earth. All
the treasures of God must be discovered, and Christian education goes a long
way in helping young people do that. “Many children of God are even today
living in spiritual poverty, though they are rich in Christ and heirs of the
world, because they have not been taught to see the greatness and splendor of
their spiritual heritage.” Thus the impetus for Christian schools and Christian
education. Covenant children need to see their spiritual wealth and be good
stewards of it. Christian education helps show them that this is their duty and
trains them to make it their delight.
Berkhof’s final essay examines The Christian school and
its authority. He relates how the in the arena of labor and even on a national
scale, people in general are increasingly desirous of asserting their
independence and shirking the authority that God has placed over them in
different spheres. He hones in on the authority of the Christian school teacher
– whether there is any authority for the teacher or not. Berkhof does not
believe it is necessary to argue in Christian circles that, in principle, the
teacher has authority, though he recognizes in practice the teacher is not
always regarded as having authority. Berkhof defines authority as the “right to
command and enforce obedience, or to speak the decisive word in debatable questions.”[29] Parents
have original authority over their children, not derived from the church,
state, or anywhere else, precisely because their children are born to them. All
authority ultimately is derived from God, who has made all things and governs
all things. Yet secular education wants to diminish the authority of the
teacher, and compounding the problem, regards children as generally good. The
belief is that the less the teacher interferes and intervenes, the more the
child is freed to naturally grow into the goodness that he is, and is becoming.
Independence of thought is stressed over morality and knowledge.[30] With
a gentle nudge, the children will supposedly desire and discern the true, good,
and beautiful. This stands in sharp contrast to the biblical depiction of
children, who are born dead in their trespasses and sins (Ps. 51:5). Berkhof
points to corporal punishment as something mandated by God as well. He
addresses the sticky question of whether the teacher derives authority directly
from God, or a mediated authority delegated by the student’s parent. Berkhof
says the teacher’s authority is derived from the parent, and that the teacher
acts in loco parentis but that the parents can only criticize the
teacher’s exercise of authority when it is not in keeping with the revealed
will of God.[31]
Yet, Berkhof also recognizes an independent authority for the teacher that
derives directly from God, saying that the teacher/school is not simply an elongation
of the family. It is a community of its own, comprised of its own cluster of
people. This means the teacher and the school organization has the right to
determine its own rules and regulations, without subjection to the cavils of
the parents, and to demand that the children obey the rules and regulations for
school life. For these rules the teacher alone is responsible to God. The
teacher, in carrying out his authority, should do so by informing the class
that they exercise authority because it has been granted to them by God, but
should do this carefully, perhaps by showing that all authority is ultimately
derived from God. The teacher should also carry out all authority in accordance
with the Word of God. The impetus for correction in a school should primarily
be moral improvement, motivated out of love, without losing sight of justice.
The teacher should love the children as their parents love them. It is a
chastising discipline, not a condemning one. Finally, equity and justice must
be maintained in the classroom, and the teacher must maintain his authority
with firmness. Long-suffering and indulgence is good, but only to a point, else
the teacher is in danger of undoing all that he has tried to impart to the
student. In light of this, Berkhof does not consider it a good idea to have
student governments, saying that the children are inexperienced and not equipped
well enough to govern the affairs of their school prior to college. Teachers
should maintain this duty, and set a good example for the students.[32]
Conclusion
Both Van Til and Berkhof argue for a thoroughly reformed
approach to education. Whether the focus is on the antithesis, the covenant,
creation, or the sources of authority, the point is maintained that nothing can
be learned when God is left out of the equation. All truth is God’s truth, and
where God is not present, no truth can be uncovered. As Christians, we have
been redeemed by the blood of Christ, and made joint heirs with Him of all
things. Such a grand calling demands that we give the best possible education
we can to our children, and because we were made to glorify God, body and soul,
and rule over creation, we need a comprehensive Christian education where
everything, including math, is taught from the proper perspective of God
ordering all things and giving significance to all things through His unfolding
plan of redemption.
[1]
Berkhof, Foundations of Christian Education, 3
[2]
Ibid., 8-9
[3]
Ibid., 11. This demonstrates that secular education was already planting the
seed of postmodernism nearly a century ago.
[4]
Ibid., 13
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid., 18
[7]
Ibid., 21
[8]
Ibid., 23
[9]
Ibid., 27
[10]
Ibid., 28
[11]
Ibid., 33
[12]
Ibid., 34
[13] Already
in Berkhof’s day, denominationalism was not tolerated in the public school --
only a broad belief in theism and a general Christianity were permitted.
[14]
Ibid., 39-40
[15]
Ibid., 43
[16]
Ibid., 52
[17]
Ibid., 54-55
[18] Ibid.,
60
[19]
Ibid., 62
[20]
Ibid., 82
[21]
Ibid., 92
[22]
Ibid., 99
[23]
Ibid., 125
[24]
Ibid., 129
[25]
Ibid., 68
[26]
Ibid., 69-70
[27] Ibid.,
75
[28]
Ibid., 77
[29]
Ibid., 103
[30]
Ibid., 109
[31] Ibid.,
112
[32]
Ibid., 115
Comments
Post a Comment