Distortions in Christian Thinking About Purpose

W hile the well-documented secular aims ofeducation certainly leave Christians

searching for something more, statements from Christian educators should not give

us so much to quibble with. Since most Christian school teachers, administrators,

board members, and parents do indeed want something different from what secular

education has to offer, almost all Christian school philosophy statements speak of

the desire to be Christ-centered in ail dimensions of the educational endeavor. For

instance, let's examine the philosophy of education statement from our fictional yet

all-too-real school-Alpha Christian School:

Education at Alpha Christian School is Christian throughout. Jesus Christ

is honored and worshiped in the life of the school. Practically speaking, that

means several things.

First, our students are taught to live righteously. Drugs, sex, violence, and

disrespectful behavior are not permitted at ACS, and our students maintain

the highest moral standards. God has directed us in the Bible as to how

should live, and at ACS we teach students to follow those biblical standards.

Second, education for Christ is one of academic excellence. Jesus never did His

work with mediocrity, and neither do the students at ACS. Students at ACS

are expected to achieve high levels of performance in academics, athletics, and

any other school activities. God deserves our best, and we work hard to give

it at ACS.

I 65 I
 Teaching Reoemptively

Third, the curriculum at ACS is biblically based, In a when modernist

thinking prevails in secular schools, we have gone back to the basics to provide

our children not only the opportunity to achieve excellence but to think

Christianly. We study Christian authors and use Christian textbooks that teach

the truth and take us back to the Christian roots of our American heritage.

Finally, with Christian teachers to serve as models, ACS seeks to teach our

students to live the Christian life. Given the opportunity to study Christian

thinkers, the expectation of high behavioral and academic standards, and

teachers who live as Christians, our students are able to take what they learn

and apply it to life inside and outside the classroom. They leave ACS prepared

to engage the enemy on the battleground of culture and society.

The problem is not so much with what is stated as the purpose of education from

this Christian (though I would seriously challenge some of the above

statements) . Few of us would argue against living righteously, working for excellence,

thinking Christianly, or living a Christian life. Rather, the greater issue is whether

the practice evident in the curriculum and methodology lives up to the philosophy

statement. Does having the statement necessarily produce the results? ( Of course, the

same criticism could be lodged against the secular educators, who are not necessarily

any better at living up to their philosophy statements than we are. )

During a faculty forum presentation at Covenant College, Stephen Kaufmann

( 1992) reported that several Christian schools identified gaps between what the

schools wanted to accomplish in students' lives and what was actually happening with

the students. The students, and sometimes the teachers, displayed a lack of ownership

of the school mission. This was especially true in cases where the purpose statement

included thoughts about producing students who would live out their Christian lives

in ways that would help to transform the culture. W hen a school's mission is not

being fulfilled, statements of purpose are of little value beyond marketing the school

to prospective parents.

Thus we return to the issue of controlling beliefs and professed beliefs. We must

examine what might be the controlling beliefs of Christian schools and educators

rather than their professed beliefs, for distortions are typically found in the controlling

beliefs. To some extent, the schools' purpose statements may reveal their controlling

beliefs, but more often we need to look at what actually goes on in the school. The

practices reveal the unstated goals, or controlling beliefs, which might be in discord

with the professed beliefs.

I 66 I
 Distortions in Christian Thinking About Purpose

It is painful to admit that some Christian schools were created to avoid the
mandate for racial integration in the public schools. Unfortunately, in certain parts

of the country, that is the unavoidable conclusion if one knows anything about the

unspoken motives of those who started the schools. Such a goal is so unworthy of

true Christian purposes, though, that I choose not to use valuable space discussing it.

One who cannot see the inadequacy, distortion, and outright evil encased in such a

goal has far deeper issues to face than educational purposes.

Distance from Evil Influences

Another underlying theme representing a more justifiable, yet still incomplete,

goal for Christian education is to protect our children from the many evils assumed

to be in public schools. Drugs, sex, low moral lack of

hedonistic views of life, lack of discipline, poor academic achievement, evolution,

"humanism;' and denial of God in the textbooks and teacher philosophy-all these

things will rightfully concern loving Christian parents.

Yetthe Christianlifeismorethanthe avoidanceofsinandevil.Tobesure,wearecalledto

live righteously, andwe donot engage in orsupporttheevilaround us, butwe are alsocalledto

encounterandtransformtheworld,tobesaltrubbedintoarottenworldtopreventdecay,notto

self-righteously watch the "meat" rot. Any of us who have been associated with a Christian

school know that evil is present right in our midst. Sin runs through us, not around us.

As apparently could have been the case at ACS, sin may take the form of being hooked

on success rather than drugs, having an obsession to be on top academically rather than

displaying hedonistic irresponsibility, being self-righteous instead of disregarding the

rules-but these types of sin are no less evil. The "avoidance" approach is not only

shortsighted and inadequate; it also is an illusion that leads us to pharisaic hypocrisy

(which God hates) and a failure to do Christ's redeeming work in the world (which

He must also hate). This approach remains a long way from fully honoring Christ in

all things.

Desire for Excellence

Still another inadequate (but often publicly stated) goal for Christian education

is the desire for excellence-not simply trying to avoid the problems in public schools

but rather trying to do a better job. If we are to adequately prepare Christian leaders

for tomorrow, we must give them academic preparation that is second to none. A

reputation for academic rigor, high achievement on tests, graduates who go on to the

I 67 I
 Teaching Redemptively

top colleges, heavy doses of homework, large numbers of credits earned each year,

and even the use of "traditionally superior" teaching methods such as phonics in

reading become the measures of a school's quality. Often the high-achieving secular

schools set the standards for success. If secular schools teach vocabulary or spelling in

a certain way and their students score well on the SAT, Christian schools are pressured

to use the same methods in hopes of producing results that are at least equal.

While often couched in the truthful idea that God takes little pleasure in

mediocrity, this goal is inadequate and leads to a position that is incongruent with

Christianity. If we are simply following the lead of"successful" secular schools, or are

trying to do what they do, but do it better, we have let a non-Christian mind set the

standards for Christian schools. As those who believe God's perspective on life and its

meaning to be the right one, can we allow those who do not acknowledge God to set

the standards for us? If they set the standards for achievement, they implicitly set the

standards for curriculum and methodology. All too often, Christians are willing to fall

in behind, offering an educational program that in most respects is built on secular

assumptions and practices, yet is offered in a Christian atmosphere with Christian

values attached, and doing a better job of it all than the secular schools.

The result of this method is a secular education offered in a Christian atmosphere,

though the terms "secular" and "Christian" are not logically compatible. Such a

discrepancy is probably the reason that we do not hear of Christian schools claiming

to offer a secular education. No Christian school would want to admit to it, so we

disguise what is actually happening under the name of academic excellence. Yet if

academic excellence (or any other kind of excellence ) is silently defined as success

according to standards set by a non-Christian mind, secular education in a Christian

atmosphere is the best that we can really claim. The results are much like those we

found at Alpha Christian School.

The pursuit of academic excellence can hardly be judged as wrong in itself, nor does

it automatically lead to a secular education. It becomes secular when the non-Christian

mind is allowed to set all the standards and when high test scores enabling students to

attend the best colleges take precedence over the time it takes to teach students to be

servants in a broken world. W hen including an active ministry to the poor as a part

of the curriculum in the economics class is impossible because "we would lose too

much study time;' we are thinking by secular standards. W hen winning the city spelling

contest takes precedence over working with those students who are discouraged about

themselves and don't think they can do anything well, we have lost God's call to minister

in order to achieve worldly success.

I 68 I
 Distortions in Christian Thinking About Purpose

Knowing God's purpose for our lives encourages us to find out who we are and what

we can do for Him, and it also encourages us to have a living faith that takes knowledge

gained in class and puts it to use for the benefit of humankind. It does not challenge us

to score at the top of achievement tests and spelling contests, especially if that means

neglecting the weightier issues. Pursuing success according to the world's standards and

attempting to make it look otherwise by couching it in some kind of"God-talk" is a way of

honoring God with our lips while our hearts are far from Him ( Isaiah 29: 13).

Christian Curriculum

Finally, another worthy but often misguided emphasis in Christian education

results from a particular kind of focus on the curriculum. Once again, the goal is

to teach our children to live the Christian life, and we accomplish that through the

"Christian curriculum." Since our desire is to encourage children to believe in God

and to live as Christians, it stands to reason that our curriculum should be different.

W hile "Christian curriculum" means different things to different people, three

common ideas about its meaning are faulty and inadequate. According to these ideas,

Christian curriculum involves the following:

1. Going " back to the basics" or to the "classics" in academics

2. Going back to the values on which our nation was built ( assuming they are
genuinely Christian)

3. Utilizing almost exclusively the writings, thoughts, and works of Christian

people

To digress for just a moment, it may be interesting to note the similarity of these

three emphases to the emphases propounded in the various secular themes addressed

in the last chapter: ( 1) Back to the basics is not unique to Christians. We have heard
the same cry from the secularists at various times in history. ( Basics may mean skills,

or particular areas of knowledge such as the liberal arts. ) (2) Some Christians view

our nation's foundational values as very Christian, and some secularists view them

as quite secular. ( 3) An exclusive curriculum may be one that uses great Christian

thinkers, or one that uses great secular thinkers. In either case, the content is viewed

as making the education what it needs to be. But can our questions what

makes an education Christian be answered simply by using the "right" content or by

including Latin and logic in the coursework?

Perhaps the difficulties of our age, the bankruptcy of modern relativism and

permissiveness, or even nostalgia has inspired our desire to "go back" to something

I 69 I
 Teaching Redemptively

that we had before and to believe that we would somehow have been better off if we

had stayed there. The idea that tradition is somehow superior to innovation rests on

rather shaky ground, however, when one considers the attitude that Jesus displayed

toward human traditions. Jesus was concerned with the way that men and women

lived out God's character, and that clearly was not always tied to human traditions.

Often, it was quite the contrary. Even granting the necessity and value of tradition,
when the traditional is somehow seen as more Christian than the current, we may be

standing on no ground at all.

As an example, the question about the efficacy of repetitious drills in learning

multiplication as opposed to the use of concrete manipulatives may be always open

to debate and research, but judging that one is more Christian than the other because

it is traditional is hardly reasonable. We constantly need to make judgments about

whether various methods of teaching are consistently Christian, but we need better

ground than tradition to make those judgments.

In an attempt to return to traditional values, whatever they may be, what guarantee do

we have that we are returning to something that is Christian? The only guarantee would be

to measure those values against the Scriptures. When some traditional American values

are examined, they may well be found to be more American than Christian. At times in our

history, it is difficult to see true Christian values at work. Often, what was labeled as such

might better have been viewed as a part of that great American democratic ideal-a civil

religion of sorts. Prayer and Bible reading in public schools hardly proved to be a means of

keeping the country on a Christian path, if indeed it ever was on such a path. Yet Horace

Mann, the father of public education in America, was adamant about keeping both as

part of the school curriculum. Prayer and Bible reading were meant to help instill proper

values in the children, but the way oflife that children were to learn was the American way.

Private, parochial schools (mostly Catholic schools), where religious beliefs were to be

incorporated in all dimensions, were seen almost as an enemy because they might teach a

world and life view that was not American. We should note that the Catholic schools were

largely ethnic schools as well.

Some people claim that we have a Christian heritage in America that needs

restoring, but such a claim is debatable and is not well supported by the evidence. We

have no biblical warrant to deify the past. Consequently, I find it difficult and possibly

wasteful to try to identify just what part of our heritage was Christian in hopes that

we can somehow go back to it. History is not full of successful examples of people

trying to return to the past, and I am not sure that the Scriptures would support such

an effort.

I 70 I
 Distortions in thristian Thinking About Purpose

As for the third emphasis stated the use of a so-called "Christian"

curriculum is also a misguided effort. A Christian curriculum usually refers to the use

of materials that either express a Christian point of view or, more likely, are simply

written by Christians. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with using materials

that are written by Christians, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with using

materials that may have been written by non-Christians. On the contrary, we should

be clamoring for more Christians to give serious thought to the academic disciplines

and the questions of our time.

Difficulty arises though when educators equate exposure to the writings of

Christians with exposure to truth, and such exposure is often accepted without

question. Conversely, exposure to non-Christian ideas is considered exposure

to falsehood, and such exposure is often rejected without question. ( Remember

sometimes equated with the promulgation of such ideas. Ifwe analyze what Christian

writers say, it is not always any more trustworthy than what non-Christian writers say.

Sometimes it is downright misleading. We can hardly assume that being a Christian

makes one an authority in any particular academic field. Also, this approach has little

credibility if only because it reduces education to simply accepting whatever a teacher

or writer says as true.

Such an approach also rests on a view ofhuman beings and learning that presents

learners as passive recipients of knowledge and education as merely giving them the

right ideas to believe. Because of their fallen nature, students cannot be trusted to

discern truth or to formulate their own expressions of it. It is odd, however, that we

cannot trust the students but we can trust the authors and teachers, who are equally

fallen. I hope the rest of this book will convince the reader that this approach is not

sufficient either. It is much too simplistic, and in the end it violates the nature of

humankind and the task that God gave us. It may also give too much authority and

responsibility to humans for shaping minds and hearts and not enough authority and

responsibility to God. Therefore treating students as passive recipients of knowledge

is not very effective in producing people who truly live the Christian life. only

produces people who can talk about it in someone else's language.

Self-Examination and Application

1. W hich of the so-called Christian "distortions" described in this chapter may apply

to your own classroom or school? W hy do you adhere to those ideas? ( Consider

both good and not-so-good reasons. )

I 71 I
 Teaching Redemptively

2. If yours is a "separatist" school, how might your students be affected negatively?

3. If yours is a school in "pursuit of excellence," how might your students be building

a life of idolatry and a definition of the self that is based on performance? How will

you combat that?

4. If yours is a "back to the basics," a "traditional values," or a "classical" school, how

might you be tempted toward a misplaced hope? How might those emphases

distract you from what it takes to be thoroughly Christian?

5. With whom should you be talking about these concerns? How can you make

that happen?

I 72