Think Biblically!

WHY CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND
NOT SECULAR INDOCTRINATION?

JOHN A. HUGHES

Bobby, the oldest of Robert and Liz Green’s four children, felt both excited and apprehensive as he boarded the plane to begin his freshman year at a prestigious eastern university. Bobby had grown up in a stable, loving, actively Christian, suburban family, attending church regularly and coming to know Christ as his Savior during his second grade year at the church’s Christian school. Mr. and Mrs. Green were active, mature Christians and caring parents who were willing to make some financial sacrifices in order to enable their children to attend an academically-strong Christian school. Mr. Green was committed to making sure that his children were able to have some of the educational opportunities that he hadn’t been able to have. He had begun working as a salesman for a local department store immediately after high school graduation. Through hard work and perseverance, he was now the manager of the store, a business that was both financially successful and a respected, popular shopping location for families throughout the county.

Bobby had excelled at the Christian high school academically, socially, and athletically. Consequently, good grades, high test scores, and a fair level of success as point guard on the school’s conference-winning basketball team had landed Bobby several college scholarship offers. It seemed to both Bobby and his parents that the opportunity to attend the college for which he was now bound was too good to pass up, especially since he had received a full-ride scholarship there.

Even during the orientation week, Bobby realized that he was in for an extremely challenging experience. His senses were constantly assaulted by the open, casual attitudes and conversations about sexual topics in the coed dorm, the cafeteria, and the student union. The first week of class added to his anxiety when the professor in his philosophy survey course asked for a show of hands of those who called themselves “Christians.” The ensuing foul-mouthed, verbal tirade shocked Bobby. Putting it politely, the professor promised that he would do all that he could to enlighten them to the naiveté and stupidity of their beliefs. Hopefully by the end of the semester, there would be few, if any, such idiots left.

Bobby attempted to find a solid church in which to worship and fellowship. Unfortunately, they were somewhat scarce in this college community. As the fall progressed, his Sunday morning attendance became more sporadic (as also did his personal devotions) with the increasing time demands from study, basketball practice, and travel for road games. He found out early in the semester never to challenge a professor’s statements, no matter how outrageous, publicly in class. Just giving the professors what they wanted was the best strategy for avoiding conflict and public humiliation.

By semester break, Bobby was struggling with his faith and his walk with God. His parents saw it when he was home for Christmas (although only briefly because he had to get back to campus for a basketball tournament). By the end of his freshman year, Bobby was a changed man. He wasn’t sure he believed in God. He knew for certain that there was no such thing as truth and that the Bible was arrogant to claim that there was. It was also quite clear to him that America, democracy, and capitalism were nothing more than schemes invented and perpetuated by a bunch of old, rich, white men who systematically exploited any and every other ethnic, cultural, and/or economically- underprivileged, underrepresented group that crossed their path. In the end Bobby decided that it was better not to think too hard, believe too much, or care too deeply about anyone else.

Bobby Green’s story is intended to be completely fictional. Unfortunately, by changing the name and adjusting some of the story’s details, most readers could transform this account into the actual experience of one or more of the promising young people from their own local church. It is a scenario that is repeated with heartbreaking frequency within most evangelical churches across America.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore what the Bible says about education and the educational process. It will hopefully provide readers with some insight about the critical issues that need to be considered when making educational choices for themselves and their children. Issues to be discussed will include the goals of education, educational responsibility, teacher qualifications, and educational curriculum guidelines.

EDUCATION DEFINED

It could be argued that education (the process of teaching and learning) is one of the most central functions within man’s existence. Education is a process that is unique to man and is not shared to any significant degree with any other part of God’s created world. While there is a measure of learning that takes place in animal young as they mature, inborn instincts provide much of the basis for their learning. While animal handlers using operant conditioning techniques have trained animals to perform a few significant and sometimes entertaining tasks, their work of weeks, months, or even years can never be compared with the learning that occurs in any first grade classroom of children in a week’s time.

Further, it may be argued that God has established the educational process as the human mechanism for perpetuating and advancing life on earth. While God has provided every man and woman with the intellectual ability to reason, hypothesize, invent, philosophize, and theorize, it is the educational process that transmits the results of that person’s intellectual activity to other individuals and to subsequent generations. And it is the knowledge and discoveries of the previous generations passed along to an individual through the educational process that serve as the input and the basis for his/her intellectual activity. It has accurately been said that each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous generations in developing an understanding of reality and of the universe in which they live. Consider whether it would be possible for civilization to advance without the mechanism of education. Is there any species of animal that has developed a substantially better lifestyle for its kind over the hundreds of generations of existence?

Education of one’s self and of others is an ability that God has given uniquely to humans. Since this is the case, could it be considered an aspect of what it means to be made in the image of God? Certainly needing to learn is not a characteristic of God’s nature because He is omniscient. However, could the ability and desire to pass along learning to other beings be considered a part of His character stamped on humans since the beginning of creation?

Teaching and learning are separate activities within the educational process. It is possible for an individual to learn without a teacher. Perhaps, in this case, the learner acts as his/her own teacher. On the other hand, it can be questioned whether teaching can be rightly said to occur in the absence of a learner or even in the presence of students who fail to learn. While education must address both teaching and learning, it tends to focus more on the what and how of the teaching side of the process so that effective learning will occur. Teaching can be seen as the cause of the educational process that produces the effect of learning.

HISTORICAL INFLUENCES THAT SHAPE CURRENT EDUCATION

As in every aspect of life, the past shapes the present, so it is in the case of current-day educational philosophy and practice. A few of the most significant historical influences that have contributed to current educational thinking will be briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.

The philosophical conception of a “liberal education” began more than 2,500 years ago with the thinking of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In books VII and VIII of The Politics, Aristotle describes the characteristics of a “liberal” education that would equip individuals for virtue, leisure, and capable citizenship.¹ The work of these philosophers was expanded and formalized by scholars in the Greek city of Alexandria. “Alexandrian scholarship emphasized an empirical approach to science and to the study of language and literature. . . . Alexandria’s advanced studies were built on the current pattern of a broad general education, preparatory to the study of rhetoric and philosophy. This system had developed from the early Greek concern to nurture in youth the aristocratic virtues of their culture, virtues which by the fifth century B.C. had given way to more democratic ideals and which later still gave way to the humanistic values of the Hellenistic age.”² Over time the Greek educational curriculum broadened to include physical training via gymnastics as well as vocal and instrumental musical instruction. The core of the liberal arts curriculum became formalized to include study in seven areas. The first three, known as the trivium, included grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, while the second group of four, termed the quadrivium, included arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.

During the rule of Constantine in the first half of the fourth century A.D., Christianity became first tolerated and then mandated within the Roman Empire. The church came to be understood as responsible for leadership and supervision of educational and scholarly activities. From the fourth to the tenth centuries, cathedral and episcopal schools taught children Christian doctrine as well as the seven liberal arts. “By the ninth century, Christians also had parochial (parish) schools from the cathedral or monastery.”³ The founding of the University of Bologna in A.D. 1158 is generally recognized as the birth of modern university-level education. “From their monastic roots and through the nineteenth century, all universities were founded as Christian institutions, regardless of whether they taught law, theology, or medicine.”⁴ It was in this intellectual soil that the seeds of the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment germinated and gave birth to modern science.

Christian scholars of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment period sought to develop a deeper understanding of the scope and complexity of the God-created, physical universe through the use of systematic observation and manipulation. They, however, clearly realized that revealed truth was authoritative whereas discovered truth needed to be held tentatively and never held when in contradiction to revealed truth. Through the next several centuries, rational thinking and scientific exploration became the recognized mechanism for discovering and defining truth. The authoritative role of the Bible was lost, even in many Christian circles. Today many Christian scholars perform amazing intellectual gymnastics to reinterpret clear teaching of Scriptures to fit current-day scientific theory in hope of gaining respectability with the secular, intellectual community. Biblical truth is held tentatively by them, and only when it is not in contradiction to scientific theory.

As rationalism gave birth to evolutionary theory, the goal and study of science shifted from discovery of God’s wonderful creation to the development of scientific theories that could completely exclude God’s involvement in the natural universe. The principles of the scientific method were extended to study of human behavior, giving birth to the social sciences. A foundational assumption of social science is that man is a natural, not a spiritual or moral, being, the product of evolutionary forces. Consequently, the doctrine of the depravity of man was completely rejected. Man was viewed as being either morally neutral or inherently good. Children’s minds are essentially blank slates to be filled in by educators with the content that would shape them to provide the most positive value to society. Wrong behaviors are seen as resulting from a lack of education. Education is seen as the mechanism for equipping individuals with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will cause them to not engage in self-destructive, antisocial, or criminal behaviors and will inspire them to place the goals of society over their own personal goals. This foundational vision for the potential of education permeates virtually all of modern western society today.

The purpose, curriculum, and methods of education changed dramatically as a result of the Enlightenment. Rationalism dominated the selection and presentation of content in every subject field. The study of natural and social sciences competed for time and priority within the curriculum. The study of theology became marginalized, compartmentalized, and disassociated from consideration in any academic field outside of itself. Through the twentieth century, the methods of teaching changed as social scientists focused the application of experimentally-derived principles of psychology and sociology to the educational setting. Conditioning techniques developed by classical and behavioral psychologists were adapted for classroom use to enhance student learning and to control behavior.

This section would not be complete without consideration of the effect that the current postmodern worldview (see chapter 7 of this book for a more detailed discussion of postmodernism) has on educational philosophy and practice. The economic hardships and worldwide conflicts of the twentieth century seriously shook the western world’s optimism and confidence in science as the key to truth, progress, and prosperity. The more cynical postmodern worldviews began to gain a wider acceptance. A cornerstone principle of these worldviews was the nonexistence of objective truth. In this worldview, “truth” was redefined to be a metanarrative (i.e., an all-encompassing explanatory model) that attempts to organize the flood of sensory inputs an individual receives each day. If truth is defined in this manner, no individual or group can claim to have a metanarrative scheme that is more valid than any other individual or group. Tolerance of all other viewpoints becomes a paramount mandate within a postmodern mind-set. However, tolerance is no longer defined as an individual’s gracious response to a person holding erroneous viewpoints. Tolerance is now defined as the expectation that every person must abandon the belief that his/her understanding of truth has any more validity than any other person’s viewpoint.

A societal consequence of postmodernism is the rise of tribalism. If truth is conceived to be a person’s mental metanarrative to explain the world around him/her, then it would be natural that he/she will have more affinity for those individuals who share similar metanarratives and will have a distrust of those who have a significantly different understanding of reality. The heterogeneity of any large organization would make it automatically suspect. From a postmodern mind-set, history is primarily seen as the record of one dominating group imposing its perception of reality on less powerful groups.

The addition of the postmodern philosophy to the intellectual landscape has resulted in changes to educational philosophy and practice. There is still a strong dominating commitment to enlightenment and rationalism, especially in the sciences. Consideration of non-natural processes for the origin and development of the universe is simply prohibited by custom and, in many cases, by law. In those subject areas of the curriculum that are more inductively and subjectively derived (i.e., the social sciences and the humanities), the effects of postmodern thinking are more pervasive and chaotic. There is no objective basis upon which students or teachers can determine the rightness or significance of historical events, created works, or even individual actions. In this environment, curricular development at the state and federal levels degenerates to a political negotiation process by various interest groups to insure that their voice is heard and their perspectives represented in the curriculum. Similarly, a commonly accepted set of principles for assessing the aesthetic quality and contribution of individual pieces of literature, music, or art no longer exists. Curricula in these subjects is now selected with the primary goal of being representative of the diverse cultural voices within global society today. A postmodern philosophy also makes moral education impossible. At best, schools can only assist students in clarifying their own personal values.

While the preceding whirlwind survey of the historical development of educational philosophy has been extremely brief, hopefully it has given the reader a sense of how thoroughly Enlightenment and postmodern philosophy permeates current-day western educational purposes, curricula, and teaching methodology.

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO EDUCATION

Our focus will now shift to consider what direction the Scriptures provide to help Christians define a biblical basis for the purpose and practice of education. A keyword search for the word education or educated in most translations of the Bible will result in few, if any, references. By this it might be concluded that education is not a particularly important focus of God’s instruction to man. However, if education is conceived to be the process of teaching and learning, and a search is made of Scriptures to identify the use of these two terms and their related forms, the picture changes dramatically. These terms are used hundreds of times throughout the Word and provide significant guidance in defining a biblical philosophy of education. It should be recognized that the Bible was not written for the specific purpose of being a teacher preparation textbook, an exhaustive school curriculum outline, or a vocational training manual. However, the Scriptures do provide clear authoritative principles that can form a solid foundation and framework for the development of a God-honoring educational philosophy.

The Purpose and Goal of Education

Education gains purpose and significance to the extent it is consistent with and contributes toward accomplishment of God’s highest purpose for man. Succinctly summarizing the teaching in scriptural passages such as Psalm 73:24-26, John 17:22-24, Romans 11:36, and 1 Corinthians 10:31, the Westminster Shorter Catechism states that “man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” The highest goal of education must then be to assist individuals in developing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will enable them to better glorify and enjoy God. There are a number of specific ways that education can assist people in their responsibility to pursue this highest of all of life’s goals.

Jesus declared to the woman at the well that “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Worship that honors God involves both the heart and the mind. A God-honoring education will constantly present opportunities and motivation for the student to worship God with broader knowledge of what is true and a deeper awe for God’s person. Each academic discipline contains elements and dimensions that can assist the believer to better understand and appreciate the character and work of God. For example, the creation has been designed to testify to God’s “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20). David wrote in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” The more a believer learns about the creation through the study of the biological and physical sciences, the greater will be his/her awe for the immensity, variety, complexity, and detail of this universe that the all-powerful, all-knowing God spoke into existence (Gen 1:1) and actively holds together (Col 1:17). The study of human history provides much cause for worship as the student discovers how the King of the ages (1 Tim 1:17) orchestrates the events of history from the individual to the global level to accomplish His purposes and bring Himself glory. The study of the creative works in the fields of art, music, and literature should direct the student’s mind to worship God who is full of beauty (Ps 27:4), the One who is the ultimate Creator of beautiful works and who gifts men with creative ability.

Paul challenges believers “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). God-honoring education will assist the Christian in this mental renewing process by providing a foundation of worldview assumptions and by cultivating logical thinking processes, habits of analysis, and patterns of evaluation that are distinctively biblical.

Believers are referred to as soldiers in a number of New Testament passages (Phil 2:25; 2 Tim 2:3; Philem 2). Christians are exhorted to recognize that they live in the middle of a war zone and are called to arm themselves for the battle (Eph 6:10-17). Contrary to how some current Christian groups would characterize it, the spiritual warfare described in the Scriptures is waged on the intellectual front. The mighty “weapons” that God has supplied us are to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:4b-5). Jude challenged his readers “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3b). Without question, believers are called by God to develop their minds for the purpose of intellectual warfare, and the educational process provides a key mechanism to assist the committed Christian toward obeying this mandate.

Properly focused education should also assist individuals to fulfill God’s highest purpose through equipping them to live wisely. Throughout the book of Proverbs, Solomon forcefully admonishes the young person to pursue godly knowledge and wisdom. Receptivity to godly instruction produces wisdom. As he states in 9:9-10, “Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” This “wisdom” and “insight” bring both honor to God and success in life (Josh 1:7-8; Prov 3:4).

Responsibility for Education

Having established that education should enable man to better fulfill his/her ultimate God-ordained purpose, and that the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom is commanded by God, the question of who is responsible for leadership in the educational process can next be considered. The Bible provides a number of very clear principles in this regard.

1. Every individual is ultimately accountable to God to be a learner. This principle of educational accountability is so often assumed that it is seldom explicitly stated. However, it needs to be articulated because it is the most foundational and most frequently declared educational accountability relationship in Scripture. God expects every individual in every stage of life to actively and thoughtfully seek to learn from every formal and informal educational opportunity. In Proverbs 2:1-4 phrases such as “receive my words . . . treasure up my commandments . . . making your ear attentive . . . inclining your heart . . . call out for insight . . . raise your voice . . . seek it like silver . . . search for it as for hidden treasures . . .” characterize the passion with which the godly individual is admonished to seek wisdom, understanding, and the knowledge of God. In fact, one of the key characteristics that distinguishes a wise man from a fool is his/her willingness to pursue wisdom or receive instruction (Prov 1:22; 9:7-10; 15:5).

God’s most direct instruction to the individual comes explicitly through the Bible and implicitly through the experiences He brings into the individual’s life. God expects man to view life’s experiences as non-formal educational opportunities and to learn from them. It is obvious from the comprehensive digest of positive and negative character traits presented in Proverbs that Solomon was a student of human behavior, thoughtfully observing and analyzing people’s reactions to life’s situations. It is also clear from 1 Kings 4:33-34 and the illustrations presented in Proverbs that Solomon actively devoted himself to study of the natural world around him. Job challenged his comforters to look to nature to learn how God is the sustainer of all life (Job 12:7-10). The kings of Israel were commanded to take responsibility for learning by personally writing out a copy of the law and then reading it repeatedly throughout their lives (Deut 17:18-19). The young Lord Jesus modeled being an active learner during His time with the teachers at the Temple (Luke 2:46-47). He later “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb 5:8). Paul learned contentment through material highs and lows (Phil 4:11-12). It seems that many current-day educational settings fail to emphasize this principle for students to take the responsibility for their own learning.

While God holds every individual responsible for being a learner, He also provides the necessary enablement for the task through His own indwelling presence in the person of His Holy Spirit. This is particularly true in regard to understanding spiritual matters, as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 2:116. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals the deep things of God (v. 10), and by virtue of His presence we have the mind of Christ (v. 16). John specifically refers to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of truth” in John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13. Paul reminded Timothy that “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim 1:7). The Greek term translated “self-control” is sometimes translated “a sound mind” (NKJV). The Holy Spirit assists the believer in clear, disciplined thinking.

2. Parents, particularly fathers, are responsible for the education of their children. Beyond the responsibility that God gives to every individual to be a learner, He has given specific responsibility for the formal education of children to parents. God explicitly commanded that Israelite parents teach their children the Mosaic law (Deut 4:9; 6:7-8; 11:19). God commanded memorials to be set up, such as the Israelites built after they had crossed the Jordan River to enter the Promised Land (Josh 4), to provide opportunities for parents to rehearse the history of their nation with their children (Josh 4:6-7). The command to honor one’s father and mother (Ex 20:12) implies the attitude of a humble learner toward one’s parents. Solomon’s admonitions for a young person to hear the instruction of his/her father and mother carries the obvious implication that the parents are responsible to provide that instruction. Our Lord endorsed the educational role of the home by submitting to His parents as He “increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52).

3. Education is not an explicitly mandated function of government. Given today’s almost complete governmental control of the formal educational process of children, it is appropriate to ask whether this is either mandated or allowed by Scripture. The Bible contains no expectation for or against governmental involvement in education either prior to the establishment of Israel or in the New Testament. But even within the nation of Israel, the home was seen as the primary mechanism for education.

It should be noted that in the Old Testament, education was not explicitly listed as a responsibility of the priesthood. However, there are examples of Levites and priests being involved in educational tasks during the time of King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 17:7-9) and after Israel’s return from captivity (Neh 8:1-9). Ezra, a priest and scribe, took leadership in this teaching role, as indicated in Ezra 7:10: “Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel.” By the beginning of the New Testament, the role of teachers (rabbis) and scribes had grown significantly and was intertwined with the Jewish religious and civil functions.

The existence of governmentally controlled educational systems is mentioned in relation to both the lives of Moses and Daniel. It should be noted that neither individual is commended or condemned for having been educated within the context of those secular education systems.

4. The spiritual leadership within the local church is responsible for the education of its membership. Our Lord’s parting command to the disciples (commonly known as the Great Commission) was to evangelize the nations and to teach believers (Matt 28:19-20). Ten days later the New Testament church was founded as the organizational entity God would use to fulfill this command (Acts 2). The central activities of the church as seen throughout the book of Acts included evangelism, fellowship, teaching, and corporate prayer. The Bereans were specifically commended by Luke for their initiative to verify the accuracy of the teaching they were receiving (Acts 17:11). One of the specific qualifications for elder leadership within the local church is an ability to teach (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9). There is an expectation within every local congregation for experienced, mature believers to teach the younger believers (Titus 2:1-3) and that those who were taught would eventually mature to become teachers for the next generation of learners (2 Tim 2:2; Heb. 5:12).

It could be argued that it is primarily “religious education” that is the mandate and focus of education within the church. If this is so, it is religious education in the broad rather than the narrow sense of the term. The basis of this educational experience was the Scriptures, which are not only able to make one wise to salvation, but also profitable to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work (2 Tim 3:15-17). On a philosophical level, it had to be broad enough to transform the believer’s mind so it was not conformed to the thinking of the world (Rom 12:2) and to equip the believer for ideological warfare (2 Cor 10:3-5; Eph 6:12; Col 2:8). As is discussed in other chapters of this book, the Scriptures provide a foundation and framework for study in every academic discipline and all areas of life.

It would be appropriate for local church leadership to consider whether their educational vision, structure, and programs “equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12) in this larger context. Some questions that should be asked when considering the broader scope of the church’s educational ministry include:

• Is the Sunday school and church curriculum structured in a way that will both enable and encourage students to apply biblical principles to the breadth of those subject areas commonly taught in elementary and secondary schools?

• What is the local church’s equipping responsibility toward their children and young people in the congregation who are in formal school settings?

• Are specific steps being taken to equip children who attend secular elementary or secondary schools to identify and refute the false philosophies they encounter on a daily basis?

• As children mature, is there a corresponding advancement in the content and intellectual level of the church’s Sunday school and youth curriculum? It seems unfortunate that many Christian teenagers wrestle with serious study of calculus, physics, world history, and literature each Monday through Friday, but are presented a church youth curriculum that is extremely weak in rigor or academic challenge.

• Does the church sense a calling to operate a Christian school that would offer a complete alternative educational experience to their children?

While an individual local church may not have the resources to effectively operate a Christian school, are there possibilities to partner with other local-area, theologically like-minded churches in this type of enterprise?

• Is there a supportive structure for those parents who choose to personally complete this educational responsibility of their children through home schooling?

• What is the church’s responsibility to its young people at the post-secondary educational level? The educational investment that parents and the church have made to provide a young person a solid biblical foundation can be lost during the transition from youth to adulthood. What steps can be taken prior to the student’s departure to equip him/her for this challenge?

• To what extent should the church promote and support Christian colleges as a post-secondary educational option for their young people?

As the leadership within a local church body considers these issues, a vision will be developed for the broader scope of the educational responsibility that God has given to the church.

Qualifications for Teachers

Having outlined the biblical purpose of and responsibility for the educational process in the development of children and young believers, the qualifications for and characteristics of effective teachers can now be considered. The Bible sets forth high standards for those who would accept the responsibility to be teachers. James 3:1 makes it clear that God will judge teachers’ speech even more strictly than that of others. One of the reasons for this higher expectation for teachers is that learners trust their teachers to speak the truth. In fact, the educational process can only function effectively when that trust exists. The whole of James 3 describes the powerful role of spoken communication in every person’s life as a tool for good and evil. The teacher is cited as the archetypical example of this principle. A godly teacher, then, must have a supreme commitment to always speak what is true, edifying, and wise.

While a teacher’s words are a primary mechanism for instruction to students, his/her actions will inevitably have a significant effect on what the students ultimately learn. The teacher’s character and behavior serve as a model for the students. Our Lord made it clear that “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). Association will ultimately affect an individual’s character, as is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’” We are counseled not to have friendship with an angry man (Prov 22:24), in order to avoid the influence of his/her character.

In selecting who to prepare for the teaching ministry in the church at Ephesus, Timothy was commanded to “entrust [what he had been taught] to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). A significant portion of the elder qualifications (which included the ability to teach) listed in 1 Timothy 3 focus on character qualities. Paul recognized the need for teachers to have an ability to communicate effectively, a commitment to the truth, and a life that would serve as a model to the students.

While consideration of personal character is a strong factor in selecting teachers for religious educational settings such as Sunday school or youth group, it is rarely given as much weight in selection of teachers in the broader educational context. To what extent do most Christian parents take purposeful steps to get to know the character quality of the teacher in the classroom of their son or daughter? At the elementary educational level, their child will spend more time being influenced by that model figure than by any other adult with the possible exception of the parents themselves.

Educational Methodology

Since the Bible was not written for the primary purpose of being a teacher training manual, it does not provide clearly enumerated lists of various teaching techniques or directions for when and how to effectively use each. However, since God designed the Bible as an instructional book (2 Tim 3:16), it is possible to identify effective teaching methods by examining the techniques and approaches that He embedded in Scripture.

On the larger scope, the educational process is characterized as the process of moving the student from being a dependent learner to being an independent learner to being a teacher (Ezra 7:10; 2 Tim 2:2; Heb 5:12-14). The two primary settings in which a formal educational process occurred in the biblical context were the home and church. Beyond these two educational venues, the Bible alludes to several examples of the use of discipling relationships (similar to apprenticeships) and organized schools to perform educational activities. Samuel was apprenticed to Eli (1 Sam 1—2) to prepare him for the prophetic ministry. Elisha served under Elijah for a time before he assumed Elijah’s prophetic mantle (1 Kgs 19:19—2 Kgs 2:18). Paul took personal mentoring responsibility for a number of young men, including Titus and Timothy, to prepare them for later ministry leadership roles. The only explicit biblical reference to a school relates to the “school of Tyrannus” in Corinth (Acts 19:9, NKJV).

The essence of teaching is communication of information, concepts, and skills from the teacher to the learner by use of language and example. The use of verbal instruction as an educational medium began on the sixth day of the world’s existence when our Heavenly Father instructed Adam what he should and should not eat in the garden (Gen 2:16-17). It might be reasonably supposed that the walks Adam and Eve had with God in the cool of the evening (Gen 3:8) had, at least in part, an instructional purpose. The Pentateuch could be considered the first biblical use of written materials as an instructional methodology. The Bible contains many examples of the teaching-learning process being conducted through the use of written instructional materials. Virtually all of the New Testament writers seemed to have an instructional goal in mind as they authored their books. Written materials have a benefit over verbal instruction in that there is a permanence to written instruction that will continue to allow for learning in the absence of the teacher.

Scriptures provide us with many examples of teaching being conducted via verbal instruction. When teaching involved a small group of learners, such as Jesus teaching His disciples, it seems that a Socratic, didactic, question-and-answer interaction style was used by the teacher. It is important to note a distinction between this Socratic interaction and what is commonly referred to as a group discussion method. In the Socratic method, the communication is teacher-focused and teacher-controlled. The teacher presents information and asks questions. Students direct their questions and responses back to the teacher. In a discussion the communication begins with the teacher’s question but then flows from one student to another. There are few, if any, instances in the Bible of discussions being used as a formal instructional method. The biblical examples of verbal, small-group teaching were teacher-focused. The use of this approach can be seen in Jesus’ upper-room discourse with His disciples, particularly the section recorded in John 13:31—14:31. As groups increased in size, the verbal instruction transitioned to more of a lecture-style presentation with less frequent interaction by the students. This can be seen in our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5—7) and Peter’s message on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-39).

Effective use of language to provide engaging and clear communication is at the heart of every good teaching methodology, whether in verbal or written form. With God as the author of language and the master teacher, the Bible provides an authoritative example for how language can be used to make teaching as effective as possible. Dr. Roy Zuck in Teaching as Paul Taught provides an outstanding analysis of how Paul used language in his letters to teach effectively. Some of the linguistic devices cited include:

Simile	Humor
Metaphor	Pun
Personification	Alliteration
Anthropomorphism	Assonance
Euphemism	Maxims
Hyperbole	Synonyms
Litotes	Antithesis
Irony	Lists
Sarcasm	Idioms
Paradox	Parallelisms⁵
Oxymoron

Another important instructional feature that should be noted in the scriptural examples of written and verbal instruction is the effective use of questions to challenge and direct the learner. Dr. Zuck points out that Paul used questions for the following purposes in his letters:

• To petition for information or to recall facts

• To pull persons up short

• To procure assent or agreement

• To promote thinking or reflection

• To prod for an opinion

• To prick the conscience

• To press for application of the truth

• To point out something contrary to fact

• To push for a conclusion

• To pour out an emotion

• To probe for motives⁶

Beyond the use of written and verbal instruction, several other methods for promoting effective learning are found in the Scriptures. God used a “discovery learning exercise” in which He had Adam name every species of animal that He had created in order to show Adam that there was not yet an appropriate helpmate for him (Gen 2:18-21). The importance of distributed practice, repetition, over-learning, and conspicuously-placed visual aids to promote effective learning is clearly seen in God’s command to the Israelites:

“And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

—DEUT 6:6-9

The Scriptures identify the value of using rhymes and songs to assist in the memorization process. God instructed the Israelites: “Now therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people of Israel” (Deut 31:19). The largest single book in Scripture is a songbook—Psalms.

Educational Curriculum Guidelines

A final question to be considered is: To what extent does the Bible identify subject areas and topics that are either required or prohibited within a biblically-focused educational experience? First, the very term biblically-focused education implies that study of the Bible must be a central emphasis in the curriculum. Many scriptural passages can be cited in support of this principle. The importance and personal benefits of knowing God’s Word is made abundantly clear in Psalm 119. Second Timothy 3:16 speaks to the comprehensive and authoritative nature of the Scriptures in equipping the man of God for every good work. Paul directly commands Timothy, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15, KJV).

Within the study of Scripture, theology should have a position of particular importance. Paul, borrowing the words of a Greek poet, declared that in God “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). John writes that Christ is the Word incarnate (John 1:1-4, 14). Some would argue that in using the term logos John meant that Christ is the underlying rationale for existence within the physical universe. He is the Creator of all and the giver of life. He is full of truth (John 1:14) and is the truth (John 14:6). In Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3).

At the other end of the curricular continuum, there are some specific areas that are explicitly prohibited from inclusion in a biblically-focused education. Paul desired that the Roman believers “be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Rom 16:19). While Philippians 4:8 directs Christians to focus their thoughts on what is true, it also sets out additional qualifications that the thought areas should be, including “honorable,” “just,” “pure,” “lovely,” “commendable,” excellent (or virtuous), and “worthy of praise.” The church in Ephesus was to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (Eph 5:11-12). Biblically-focused teachers should recognize there are topical areas that, while true and historical, are so shameful that they should be avoided.

In his last letter to Timothy, Paul shared a number of guidelines for that pastor’s teaching ministry that included exhorting his people “not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (2 Tim 2:14); he added, “avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness” (v. 16), and “have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels” (v. 23). The Christian teacher needs to be sure to select content to be taught that has substance and inherent weight, rather than focusing on speculative and vaporous topics or arguing over semantics.

To some extent, the principle that Paul gave to the Corinthians is relevant in this regard. He taught that while all things were lawful for him, all things were not helpful (1 Cor 6:12), some things were too powerful and likely to enslave him (1 Cor 6:12), and some things would not build him up (1 Cor 10:23). Teachers need to be very sensitive in the selection of topics to be taught and also in the way selected topics are presented, to avoid inadvertently cultivating any of these possible negative side effects in the lives of their students. In most situations, the student could be considered the weaker brother of Romans 14, and it is the responsibility of the teacher not to put a stumbling block in his/her way. The Lord emphasized this principle in the teaching of children when He said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42).

The preceding discussion should not, however, be taken as an excuse for a student to avoid study of subject areas that are personally objectionable and/or with which he/she philosophically disagrees. In their book Christian Education: Its Mandate and Mission,⁷ the Bob Jones University faculty presents an outstanding discussion of this issue. A chapter in that book identifies the following seven types of objectionable elements: profanity, scatological realism (specific references to excrement), erotic realism, sexual perversion, lurid violence, occultism, and erroneous religious or philosophical assumptions. The chapter describes the strengths and weaknesses of the three major approaches taken by Christians in regard to censorship in these areas (permissivistic, exclusivistic, and pragmatic) and argues that the biblical approach is distinctly different from any of them. It makes the point that the Bible includes all seven types of censorable elements for instructional purposes and recommends that the three biblically-derived criteria of gratuitousness, explicitness, and moral tone must be carefully analyzed in each case of possible censorship when making curricular decisions.

Having briefly described those curricular areas of study that are either explicitly mandated or prohibited by Scripture, there remains a vast middle ground of subjects and topics that the believer is free to explore. There are many subject areas within this category for which Scripture provides implied encouragement for study as a means to enable believers to more effectively glorify and serve God. For example, serious study of God’s Word requires an individual to have a well-developed reading ability with a reasonably broad vocabulary as well as strong analytical and critical thinking skills. The command about “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15) implies the need for development of spoken communication and rhetorical skills. It could be reasonably argued that a careful study of history and philosophy is a necessary part of preparation for spiritual warfare to enable believers both to avoid being taken captive “by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col 2:8) and also to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). To view one Christian college faculty’s perspective about the breadth of subjects and skills that are important areas for study in the context of an undergraduate educational experience, the reader should visit the academic programs section of The Master’s College website (www.masters.edu).

The example of biblical figures also provides encouragement for a breadth of study on our part. Job and Solomon demonstrated an in-depth understanding of nature. It is recorded that Daniel and his Hebrew colleagues received extensive training in “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Dan 1:4). In fact, God gave them special enablement in this study of secular pagan literature (Dan 1:17) so that “in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom” (Dan 1:20). Paul’s frequent use of secular Greek literature in his messages make it clear that he had studied this subject area in some depth. The study of art and music are endorsed through the biblical examples of Bezalel (Ex 31:1-5), David, and Asaph.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

This chapter has highlighted the differences between a secular and biblical focus in regard to the purpose, methods, and content of education. The highest goal of education must be consistent with God’s larger purposes—to equip individuals to more effectively glorify God through worship and service. First, priority must be given within the curriculum to the centrality of Scripture. Beyond that, curricular choices should be centered around scriptural principles to equip students in a broader context, avoiding some destructive topic areas and handling other content with sensitivity to the maturity level of the pupils. God holds teachers to a high standard of accountability for their curricular choices, the methods they use, and the personal examples their lives model to the students.

Parents, pastors, and teachers must consider the choices they make for their own continuing education, their children’s education, and the educational strategies they recommend for others in their sphere of influence. Current-day, western, public schooling at the elementary, secondary, and collegial levels is, at its best, oblivious to biblical principles of education and more often completely adversarial to them. What steps are pastors and parents taking to counteract the secularizing effects of public schooling in the lives of their children, young people, and collegians? Christian school principals and Christian college academic deans must similarly consider the effect that public school training has had on the perspectives and methods of many of their faculty members and how they can provide effective reeducation in these areas. A thoughtful and definite response must be given to these issues if the church is to provide a biblically-focused education to equip the next generation of Christian leaders and laypeople.