Christian Education in the 21st Century

Scraps

2010-03-04T12:36:00.000-08:00

Christ is the exact substance of every inkling of myth and ethic—of every shadow—that ever hinted at Him and guessed at His existence. The Apostle Paul proclaimed “the Lord of heaven” as the “unknown god” whom the Athenians ignorantly worshiped (Acts 17). He noted that they were religious (superstitious) people. Among them were Epicureans and Stoics, two groups who were boldly opposed to one another.

Epicureans were those who held to the creed of Epicurus, who scoffed at what he called superstition though he was deeply irrational himself. He thought the world was not created by God, but that it “came into its being and form, through a fortuitous concourse of atoms, of various sizes and magnitude, which met, and jumbled, and cemented together, and so formed the world.” Sound familiar? The highest pleasure to Epicurus was tranquility and freedom from fear. One could achieve this pleasure through knowledge, virtue, temperance and friendship.

There are two major sects in the school of Epicureanism. The rigid sort found happiness in the mind as they practiced moral virtues. The so-called “remiss” or “loose” Epicureans found pleasure in the body as sensual beings.

At the Stoa Poikile (the painted porch) a man named Zeno taught his ideals. From this porch in Athens came the Stoic philosophy. Zeno rightly taught that there was one God and that He made the world. However, he made a quick departure from what was right when he taught that the law of morality was the same as the law of nature. To him good, for man, was instinctual; and love for all other beings was one of his prime ethics. Indeed, Adam and Eve were “good” as a part of God’s good creation, but they sold themselves into the dominion of darkness, and sin became as natural as breathing to their race.

How love can simultaneously be seen as instinctual, yet also as a tenet that must be obeyed, is beyond sound reason. Bird dogs hunt birds not according to creeds, but to instinct. If they had to be told or taught to hunt birds, it would not be instinctual. Nevertheless, to the Stoic, an unkind person is only someone who is unaware of the inherent kindness within him. The logos (the inherent, universal reason in all things) is something one can forget. Any divergence from the virtues is the failure to remember the logos within. It would be like one’s heart forgetting to pump.

Of course, if the tenet is to choose between two opposing natures (as the New Testament teaches), the Stoic belief makes perfect sense. The man who walks in the flesh (the old nature) naturally commits acts of sin. The man who walks in the Spirit (the new nature) naturally commits acts of righteousness. If one cannot “forget” to abide in the Vine, one can certainly be neglectful of accessing His grace. Therefore, like the Stoic who forgets his instinctual “good,” the Christian can forget that his goodness is nothing apart from God (Psalm 16:2).

The point here is that each of these philosophies contains scraps of truth, but not Truth Himself, who, in reality, is Wisdom. Twila Paris has written a song called Wisdom, which accurately portrays people such as the Epicureans and Stoics. She sings, “I see a multitude of people, some far away, and some close by. They weave together new religion. From tiny remnants they have found a bit of truth, a greater lie.”

As leaves will die when picked from a tree, so the fig leaves that covered Adam and Eve were dead. They were disconnected from their source of life like the man and woman they covered. They were fragments—like shards from a broken vessel. God necessarily clothed the man and woman with His righteousness, because their self-righteous covering was inadequate.

A bit of truth taken from Truth Himself is like taking a branch off a tree. It has not ceased to be true, per se. It has, however, ceased to be living. Of course, most of philosophy is built around disjointed truth—having lies built into it like tares sown into a field of wheat.

One can collect an armload of “branches”...a bunch of truths...and organize them into what one might call his creed, code of ethics, or even his doctrines. The detachment from life does not make the branch cease to be a real branch. One’s creed may have come from Christ, but if he is not abiding in Christ—alive and nourished by the Vine—his religion is no more useful in eternal terms than any other philosophy.

If one severs an arm from the body, it does not cease to be an arm; it merely ceases to be alive. When truth is independent of God, it does not cease to be true. It ceases to live. Worldly religion is like Dr. Frankenstein’s invention; when one takes parts from their proper place and patches them into his own hierarchy of values, prioritizing them according to his subjective understanding, he ends up with a sort of monster. Secular education is like this.

The issue is not ultimately whether a person’s ethics are right or wrong, good or evil. Ethics merely result from the realm one abides in: Darkness or Light. The issue is between Life and Death. “I have set before you life and death,” says God, “choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19). There is nothing wrong with ethics or ethnicities, per se. However, the central issue remains Life. We can only rightly discern between the clean and the unclean, the holy and the profane, according to His Light.

Cain and Abel exemplify the difference between one who worships in sheer ritual and one who worships in spirit and truth. Outwardly, the appearance of the two can be nearly identical; inwardly, the difference is as stark as night and day. Cain might be said to represent secular education, while Abel symbolizes the one who walks by faith.

The Law of the Spirit

2009-10-22T02:55:00.000-07:00

On November twenty-fourth, 380 A.D., Theodosius the Great (Emperor of Rome) made his adventus into Constantinople, which had fallen under Gothic occupation. He thus reunited eastern and western portions of Rome, connecting Europe and Asia differently than the architectural bravery of the modern Bosporus Bridge. It was he who made Christianity the state religion. Theodosius was the true successor of Constantine (who had convoked the First Council of Nicaea, out from which came the Nicene Creed). Two days following his advent in Constantinople, Theodosius expelled the anti-Nicene bishop and installed one who held, as he did, to the Nicene Creed. A few months later, Theodosius and Gratian (his co-augustus) commanded all of their people (encompassing eastern and western Rome) to profess the same Nicene faith held by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.

Much in the way the Law of Moses served to unite Israel as one nation, under God, the Nicene Creed has helped unify the hearts of believers throughout Christian history. It's value is inestimable. But at the same time, we must not forget that Christianity is not about a creed...it is about a Person. When members of Christ's Body elevate one set of doctrines over the whole Person of Christ, it is like this, as Paul said: "if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be" (1 Corinthians 12:17)? "By one Spirit," says Paul, "we are all baptized into one body" (vs. 13).

There are more than six hundred laws in the Pentateuch, and many sects have probably grown up around each and every one of them. But by the time we get to Micah 6:8, these laws are apparently simplified into three: “And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” In the New Covenant we come to the simplest of all—Christ! God’s will is to “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him” (Ephesians 1:10). Certainly this is why Paul preached Christ alone to the carnal, separatist Corinthians! Some said they were of Paul, others of Apollos. But Christ alone is All in all. He cannot be limited to a preacher or even a denomination, and certainly not to a narrow creed or a sectarian doctrine. Christ is vast and unsearchable.

The just man, according to the most influential philosophers, ordered his life by an external code, but the Bible tells us the just shall live by faith (Galatians 3:11). Jesus and the Apostles delivered this gospel of grace to a world steeped in Hellenism. The Greeks had almost as many opposing schools of thought and varying philosophers as we have denominations. What's more, Aristotle’s ideal man was one who would never receive, but always give...utterly independent. Christ humbles us by serving us. As Bonhoeffer says, His act of charity toward us is the ultimate shame; that we should be in the position of poor beggars wounds our pride. Many people refuse the Apostle’s answer as to what sort of law the just live by: the Law of Faith (Romans 3:27). Faith strips mankind of all boasting. It takes away the Adamic “fig leaves” one likes to don.

And faith is the only way we can be whole. The only way to keep the Law as perfectly as it requires, to keep the entire Law, is to walk by faith—abide in Christ. He is the embodiment of the whole Law. He is the final Word (Hebrews 1:1). To be perfect as He is perfect is to abide in Him…to take Him for your perfection. It has come down to one thing: “Believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29). All else follows as a natural progression. When you believe and abide in Him, the result is that you love God and your neighbor…from within. Faith is the ethic of the believer.

To walk in the Light as He is in the Light is to walk in separation from darkness. He is Light and there is no shadow in Him. To walk in the Light is to live by the Law of the Spirit. The Law of Moses is, of course, a shadow of Christ. It serves as a compass, a guide...a lamp to our feet. But Christ Himself is the Destination. And only as we walk in Absolute Light (1 John 1:7) does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from all sin. Light automatically separates us from darkness, if we will but step into Him…believe. The continued walk of faith—abiding in the Light—is the purpose of Christian education. The flaming sword sunders soul from spirit, truth from error, sin from sinners; Light eradicates darkness.

Much like the built-in laws of nature, the Law of the Spirit empowers believers to live a fruitful Christian life in the same way a branch produces fruit when it is connected to the vine (John 15:5). The law of Life in Christ is organic, rather than mechanical. “A Jew,” says the Apostle Paul, “is not one outwardly, but inwardly” (Romans 2:28-29).

Schools of Law

2009-09-20T13:24:00.000-07:00

There are various kinds of laws, which can aid in education if they are understood and properly utilized. In fact, it is important to understand these different laws, because they have molded education for good and bad. As the Apostle Paul said, “the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (I Timothy 1:8).

Firstly, there are laws of nature. Secondly, there are laws of man. Thirdly, there is the Law of Moses. Fourthly, there is the law of the Spirit.[1] We will explore these laws and some of their aspects.

The laws of nature can be represented by mathematical equations: symbols and formulas. Natural laws are mainly observed through sciences such as astronomy, physics, genetics, biology, geology, zoology and botany.

The laws of man are seen in many various forms, from ethics and philosophy to religion; from family traditions to governmental rule. They either harmonize with the cosmos, or they contend with it.

The Law of Moses is known as the Pentateuch. Technically, it is the first five books of the Bible, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. The Law of Moses was given as a teacher. Like a mathematical equation, it symbolizes and points to something: namely, Christ.

The Law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2) is essentially the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. In one way, these two laws are similar to the laws of nature and the laws of man: the laws of nature work from within, as the laws of man are imposed from the outside. The basic difference between these two laws is the main difference between the Old and New Covenants. The first was external, written on stone tablets. The second was internal, written on hearts. Christian education embraces all of these laws, granted they are used properly.

The Law of Moses

Biblically speaking, education is instruction and direction; the Law of Moses is a tutor, which leads us to Christ.[2] It instructed Israel how to live morally, ceremonially, and civically. It was a lamp to the feet and a light to the path.[3] The Old Covenant Law is filled with types, figures and shadows of Christ. It was the map, and not the destination:

“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. …if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”(John 5:39-40, 46-47).

The Law of Moses was given by God at Mount Sinai, which is the chief summit of a mountain range known as Horeb (modern Jebel Musa). The word Sinai apparently comes from a Syriac root, meaning, “to shine.” The same root is found in the Babylonian word, which means “the moon.”[4] Metaphorically, Sinai reflects the Light of God just as the moon reflects the light of the sun. Horeb means “desolate,” it is a barren wilderness, void of life. The moon cannot produce light any more than the Law can produce life.

Sinai and Horeb, according to many scholars, are often used synonymously in scripture. Together, they typify the purpose of the law: to expose sin and “bring forth death” [5] to the old nature (i.e. desolate us), as well as to point us, as a great educator, to Christ. The Law is also a custodian, according to Galatians 3:23. 1 Timothy 1:9 says, “law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners.” Yet, there is another kind of law, “the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2).

The New Testament writers most often used the Greek word nomos to denote “law.” It is a word that came out of Athens after Alexander the Great conquered parts of the Near East and unified Hellas (Greece). The Hellenization of the ancient world resulted from his conquests, as well as from Greek colonization in parts of Asia and Africa. Before Alexander, the Greeks were segmented into various tribes and city-states, each with their own culture and code of ethics. There was not a single set of laws governing the whole.

Heraclitus understood there to be a divine nomos, which transcended the customs of a society, and which was their source. However, he took a liking to the Persian nomos “which prevents a father from seeing his child before the age of five, lest the child’s untimely death bring him grief.” He also praised the Babylonian nomos of auctioning off marriageable women. He did not, however, appreciate the Babylonian nomos of temple prostitution.

Eventually, nomos came to denote most generally written law, and this was its primary meaning at the time of Christ. It is translated as “custom,” “law” and about a dozen other things. The Greek concepts of law were many. Good or bad, they have played an enormous part in the formation of our Western ideals of education. Upon reading the gospels, one can see how intricately Jesus affirmed certain ideals, unabashedly opposed others, and summarily brought correction to the whole of Hellenized thinking. The problem with the religious Jews in the time of Christ was not that they were Jewish, it was that their Judaism had become Hellenized! Nomos was turned into a system of self-righteousness; the Law of Moses was placed through the grid of Greek thought. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life! Faith and reason abide together peacefully in Christ alone.

The ancients were taken up with the idea of justice. What is justice, and how does the just person live? The answer, for most philosophers, was that the just live by laws, creeds and ethics. The Apostle Paul partially affirms this notion, but asks by what kind of law is a man just (Romans 3:27)?

[1] The sequence of laws in this paragraph does not necessarily indicate their order of importance.

[2] Galatians 3:24.

[3] Psalm 119:105.

[4] See “Sinai” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

[5] Romans 7:5.

Preparing the Way

2009-03-06T17:57:00.000-08:00

John the Baptist was sent by God to “prepare the way.” His cry was for repentance—to turn hearts back to Him. Repentance is not only an initial change of direction at the time of salvation, but a life-long (even daily) discipline of turning one’s heart to God. True repentance (Greek, metanoia) embodies a change of mind, a change of purpose, and a changed life.

Solomon’s wisdom was obviously not in his own ability to make good judgments; this is apparent from the major mistakes he made when his heart veered away from God. It was in the beginning of his reign when he prayed for an “understanding heart” (literally, a hearing heart). Having a heart attuned to God made him wiser than anyone on earth. Unlike the Socratic enticement to “know thyself,” biblical education encourages us to know God and His counsel in all things. “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom…but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me” (Jeremiah 9:23, 24).

Very simply, humanism says, “I can do it.” Christianity, on the other hand, says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” The key to success in all of life is “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” A life of faith in (dependence on) Christ is paramount for instructors to be godly mentors, for He alone is the source of true character.

The goal of Christian educators is to help cultivate the minds of students, to aid them in making sound decisions, and to be effective and authentic role models; teaching them by example the value of life-long “repentance.” Our task is to guide the plow, disperse the seed, water the new crop…and most importantly, try not to eclipse the sun. “Preparing the way” is the job of educators.

Beholding and Becoming

2009-02-28T08:52:00.000-08:00

“‘Now I know what life is!’ beamed the artist. ‘It is love! It is being lifted above yourself, the rapture of losing yourself in beauty. What my friends call life and pleasure is unreal and as fleeting as a bubble; they know nothing of the pure, heavenly altar wine that initiates us into life!’” — Hans Christian Andersen

Jesus said “he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me” (John 6:57). In the Hebrew temple, the "bread of the presence" was literally the “bread of the face.” This “showbread,” as it was called, was commanded to be unleavened.

Classical education attempts to impart character by showing students the artful beauty in paintings, statues, and the prose and poetry of Greek and Latin. The idea is that once the student acquires an appreciation of art, his or her ethics will reflect a similar beauty in the way daily life is gone about. The Greek pursuit of beauty was, at best, misguided. Being ignorant of the “leaven” (original sin) that resides in every individual heart, their appreciation of “forms” turned into lust and licentiousness. With defiled understandings, they constructed their own meaning around things, misunderstanding and misusing the beautiful stuff of creation.

While we are full of leaven, Christ is not. When Moses asked to see God’s glory, He showed Him His unsullied attributes. And it is because all have sinned, and fall short of the glory, that we must be saved—restored to the image of God’s beautiful and "unleavened" likeness. God’s absolutes are not merely commands—they are the very essence of His being. And we are called to be like Him. Sinning is in large part wrong doing, but falling short of the glory is wrong being…wrong doing is a result of wrong being. Our “doing” should come out of our “being,” and our “being” should be in Him.

Christ-centered education is the opposite of secular education; it is not about self-realization. “For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). Socrates said, “One thing I know, and that is that I know nothing.” Secular academia has latched on to this notion, which seems like a humble statement at first glance. But upon closer inspection we find that Socrates was planting the seeds of finite relativism[1]—all is a matter of the way the individual sees things. “Know thyself” was Socrates’ greatest revelation. Contrast this with Jesus’ teaching to deny thyself, and the wisdom of Solomon to “lean not upon your own understanding.”

Indeed, everything is relative. But what or who is everything relative to?

[1] What I mean by finite relativism is that all is relative to you, rather than you being relative to all. Technically, Socrates opposed relativism as the Sophists (who came up with the idea) taught it. They believed people were relative to their culture and experiences. Socrates, on the other hand, believed culture and experiences were relative to oneself—“know thyself” is finite relativism.

Inspiring Minds

2008-11-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

Solomon writes:

“So that your trust may be in the Lord, I have taught you today, even you. Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, to make you know the certainty of the words of truth that you may correctly answer him who inquires of you?” (Proverbs 22:19-21).

Christian educators need to have answers for students who honestly inquire…answers that cultivate trust in the Lord, rather than undermine it. It is directly opposite of secular education. Will Durant says, “Philosophy begins when one learns to doubt.” Secular education is built around the philosophy of irrational unbelief. Secular education fosters doubt. Christian education fosters belief...faith.

Educators are called to teach “faithful men.” “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words” (Proverbs 23:9). Fools say there is no God—they are the atheists of today. Apologetics is not to be used on fools, but to help the seeker —him who inquires of you—to trust in the Lord.

Before Jesus ascended into Heaven, He told Peter to feed His lambs, as well as His sheep. Lambs, according to various commentators, indicate less mature believers, while sheep denote the more mature members of the Body of Christ. It is needful for Christian educators to assist, lead and guide “lambs” in the continuance of education.

The call of Christian educators in administering the continuation of education is to bring understanding to the pupil. When Christ is truly brought into view, the students, if they will see Him, are humbled. Humility is the road to understanding; fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. The acknowledgment of a higher knowledge—a higher authority—than your own is fundamental. That authority is not always right, or godly, is not the issue. Daniel was able to serve the king of Babylon because he knew God was ultimately in charge.

Because we live in a world of relativism, our anchor of truth must be set before we can weather the waves of secularism that pervade the workplace. Christian education helps to root and ground students in faith. With Christ-in-you, the foundation has been laid for the building up of every area in life. Formal education only rests rightly on Him, and by His light can we discern if the “knowledge” we are given is actually truth. The anchor of Biblical education can hold through all the storms of life; the absolute compass of His Life and Light can guide through any endeavor.

Spiritual Authority

2008-10-18T09:49:00.000-07:00

The spiritual realm is not a sort of Neverland, as we have previously discussed. The Christian does not (at least should not) believe in fantasy. Nevertheless, C.S. Lewis conveyed the idea of another, unseen realm in his Chronicles of Narnia. Narnia is a secret land, which must be entered into through a doorway—a wardrobe, to be exact. When a person believes in Christ, he is awakened to the hidden, invisible Kingdom of God. His spirit rises from the dead, and he becomes one spirit with the Spirit. He has gone through a doorway into Christ…into another realm (John 10:7).

Adam and Eve rejected the authority of God because they did not want to submit to someone outside of themselves. The Tree of Knowledge was the tree of becoming one’s own authority. It is important for Christian educators to convey the concept of true authority. People need to know there is something beyond and above them that knows more and better than they do. Whether or not their particular authority at the moment knows more or better than they do, somebody does…even if it is only God. It is hard to imagine the Apostle Paul needing to submit to authority, yet he was not a “lone ranger.”

Censorship is not for the sane man, as the law is not for the righteous. Elders and counselors are more for the sake of unity and safety for all than they are to enlighten the enlightened. However, elders in the Body of Christ do help immature and carnal believers discern the difference between soul and spirit. They confirm and/or deny because many believers do not know the difference between radio and TV, so to speak.

A sure sign someone is not walking in the Spirit is the fact that he is not in fellowship with other believers. The Christian has fellowship with God and other Christians. We can be sectarian by fracturing off from the rest of the Body, or even by only relating to the one fragment with which we agree. But this is far too much like secularism to be taken for Christianity. Paul urged the Philippian church to strive “together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27). Like a team, believers are called to be united in one Mind, with one Spirit, not in the sense of all being the same, as if every organ in the body were the pancreas, but in the sense of unity through diversity. Every organ in the body works corporately to sustain life. In submission to the Head, and to one another, the Body functions properly.

Daniel, too, understood the concept of authority. While he served ignoble despots, he did not bow to their gods. Daniel understood that the Sovereign hand of God used even the king of Babylon to do His bidding. God restored Israel from captivity by using Darius and Cyrus, pagan kings. In the midst of Babylon, Daniel yielded his heart to the absolute authority of God. Daniel could serve the king of Babylon because he understood authority; he knew God was the final authority, and no despot could thwart His ultimate purpose.

True Christian Science

2008-10-04T18:55:00.000-07:00

When Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," He was not transmitting a thought or feeling to them; He was not transmitting something imperceptible, either. He was turning the light back on inside of man…the life of God is the light by which we see! Atheistic scientists do not believe in God because they cannot perceive Him. The reason they can't perceive Him is that their spiritual perceivers (i.e. their spirits) are not working. When Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, their spirits died—the light went out, and people became spiritually blind.

All around us, even now, are radio waves. One can tune into the classical station (101.1 FM) if one merely adjusts the radio dial to "perceive" the frequency. If the radio is broken, one might not ever know there is a classical station. If another person is completely ignorant of what a radio is, they might accuse someone who tunes into the radio as being "mystical" or "delusional."

Since God is Spirit, it requires that we tune into His wavelength...His frequency...to perceive and observe Him directly. This does not negate the natural world; it transcends it. To observe Him “scientifically” is possible when your spirit is alive and functioning. One must have a properly functioning instrument to see what cannot be seen with the natural senses. If we say the spiritual man is unscientific because he perceives what we cannot see with natural senses, we must also say the astronomer is unscientific because he perceives what we cannot see with the naked eye.

Telescopes, radar and radio tuners are merely tools to perceive what is imperceptible to the natural man. The spirit of man is much like this. Creatures like bats, dolphins and whales use sonar. The killer whale actually takes a sonogram of his observed subject. He can perceive its temperature and heartbeat, and whether or not it is warm or cold blooded. He knows if he does or doesn't like to eat it because of his functioning sonar. The shark, on the other hand, has no such faculty. He has to take a bite to see whether or not he likes his potential supper.

The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord…the ignition of His Life brings light to the soul. If one’s lamp is lit, he is not in darkness. The mature Christian can know the difference between his thoughts, feelings and spiritual perceptions, just as much as he can know the difference between television and radio. He can even come to know the difference between 101.1 FM and 94.9 FM. Not many people tune into the classical station and think they are watching Good Morning America. But then, the insane person might look out the window at nature and wonder if, maybe, he has turned on The Discovery Channel.

Long ago people thought John Colter (the "white man" who discovered Yellowstone) was a liar upon his description of it. They called it “Colter’s Hell.” Atheistic scientists do not believe in God because, like Yellowstone, He is unfathomable to them.

The reason one believes astronomers when they say there are red giants in the heavens, or supernovas, is because astronomers have seen them with telescopes. To deny the instrument is an easy way to deny the discovery. Not to tune in to the classical station's frequency does not nullify the station. It merely keeps one from hearing the music.

Spiritual Education

2008-09-22T18:57:00.000-07:00

An important principle to grasp is found in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” Greek scholar and commentator, Kenneth Wuest, says:

“The word ‘natural’ is the translation of a Greek word which Paul uses to describe to the Corinthian Greeks the unregenerate man at his best, the man whom Greek philosophy commended, the man actuated by the higher thoughts and aims of the natural life. The word used here is not the Greek word which speaks of the sensual man. It is the word coined by Aristotle to distinguish the pleasures of the soul, such as ambition and the desire for knowledge, from those of the body. The natural man spoken of is the educated man at the height of his intellectual powers, but devoid of the Spirit of God.”

Aristotle’s “natural” man was the zenith of humanity, yet he was as an ignoramus in comparison to the spiritual man. God is Spirit. His habitat is spiritual—heavenly; His words are Spirit. To the religious relativists of His day, Jesus said, “Where I am, you cannot come.” He was speaking to them as to mere, natural men. In another place, He prays to the Father for His disciples that they “…be with Me where I am.” Jesus dwelt in two realms at once—heaven and earth.

The unbelieving secularists claim to be objective because they believe in science. To them, anything they can’t perceive is non-existent, like God. It has been said that the man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument. The secularist will undoubtedly say that it is all a matter of emotion; that God exists in one’s feelings and imagination.

My disenchanted friend claims to believe scripture, albeit, he reasons away the idea of spiritual life by saying "spirit" is a metaphor for one’s soul. He insists that Christians do not experience the reality of God’s indwelling presence. Mistaking soulful experience for spiritual experience is very common, indeed. However, the man who has seen Greece is not at the mercy of the man who thinks it is like Antarctica; the man who has been there knows better.

The relativist says it is all in the imagination, but the man who has never been to the Isle of Chios should not tell the man who has been there that it doesn’t exist. One can merely show it to another on the map, but unless a man goes for himself, he merely trusts the word of the one who has been there, that it is there, and that it is as described. The poor, unbelieving relativist will never know spiritual life unless he acquires eyes to see and ears to hear! Having never left Wisconsin, he demands that the crystal-blue waters of the Aegean are a farce; Chios is a fanciful myth to him. He is utterly content with his small world.

As "theological scientists," Christians do not merely theorize about what they believe. The Apostles, like true scientists, proclaimed what they had seen and heard (I John 1:3). Believers know they are the children of God because they perceive Him: “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16).

The Combining of Two Realms

2008-09-15T18:51:00.001-07:00

Pagan philosophers have long admitted to the existence of body and soul (mind, will and emotions). What they most often deny and refute—sometimes violently—is the existence of spirit (because they have no personal evidence of such). Claiming to make scientific observations, they live in the world of speculation. Without the ability to perceive God, people decide truth for themselves (based on observations made exclusively by the fallen, thus warped, body and soul). They argue that no two people see anything exactly the same way. Therefore, all is relative to one’s own standpoint. Each person is the highest authority in his own, small world; he is the center of his individual universe.

I have a friend who believes the secular idea that man is just body and soul…nothing more. He has come to this conclusion, much in the way Charles Bradlaugh came to his ideas: he witnessed people (so-called Christians) touting irrational theories and displaying unstable emotions which they insisted were spiritual…claiming the source of their ideas was God. My friend left the island of mythological madness for the more placid waters of philosophy. False representations of Christianity did not kindle the fire of doubt in him, but they did fan the flames.

My friend does not realize his erratic philosophy is merely another side of the same coin. Pagan mythology and pagan philosophy, though not identical, are nonetheless twins. Cultural and ethical differences are all that separate them. Varied opinions are equal if they are all wrong; a dead rat is just as dead as a deceased mouse. Philosophy and mythology are in the same proverbial boat.

What my friend experienced was more akin to pagan mysticism than Christianity. Claiming to be “faith,” it was a system of unbelief, fostered by the negation of creation and the insistence on fantasy. It was like the toy, plastic food offered by children playing house. There is nothing wrong with imagination, per se, but when one insists his imagination is reality, the game ceases to be innocuous.

When Christian educators teach science, math, and other wholesome subjects, the student at the natural level sees the goodness of God. This establishes and strengthens his faith. It is important to establish in the hearts of students that God is just as much God in the ordinary as He is in the extraordinary. There is a type of reverse secularism, which Christian educators should be mindful of—the defiance of common, ordinary, everyday life; the disdain of practicality. God was just as much God in the carpenter shop as He was on the mount of transfiguration. He was just as holy in the stable, among the cows, as He is in Heaven…and just as spiritual.

That God came down to earth is not the negation of spirit, nor the negation of earth, but the combining, once again, of two realms. Adam was made to be spiritual and physical. Jesus, being the Last Adam, is Son of God and Son of Man. The first Adam lost the function of his spirit, and became a creature of mere earth (soul and body alone). The Last Adam is not only the Lord of Heaven, but Lord of earth as well (1 Corinthians 15:44).

My unbelieving friend had many experiences with believers who might as well have sung Bibbety Bobbety Boo, or When You Wish Upon a Star in their worship services. To them, the Bible was treated as a book of spells; people were always trying to coax the “genie” out of the bottle to make him grant their wishes.

There is no harm in imaginary places like Neverland or C.S. Lewis’ Narnia. They metaphorically represent real places. Christ Himself was the Master of Parables. Stories can aid in getting people to see beyond the natural world. However, in my friend’s experience, it was the imaginary that was proclaimed—not as something pretend, allegorical or even metaphorical—but as reality!

Religion and philosophy outside of Christ is merely mythology and folly. The call of Christian education is to preach and teach Christ. The putting forward of cultures and creeds as absolute, unless they are rooted and grounded in Christ, is the kind of irrational idolatry that fuels the flames of unbelief. When systems of self-righteousness are built out of fragmented truth, they often look so much like Christianity that the average person cannot tell them apart. Like counterfeit currency, it takes close examination to discern sham religion from true Christianity.

Reason and Mythology

2008-09-07T16:03:00.000-07:00

My wife recently received an email from an old friend who is currently studying philosophy at a state university in Illinois. She writes:

“It's interesting…in secular universities how strong the bias is against God, particularly against Christianity. In one of my philosophy of religion classes, one of the girls got up in front of the class and said, ‘I was born and raised a Christian. But this class has torn me up. I don't know what to think anymore.’ I was at a low point spiritually when I first started studying philosophy. I'd had a lot of weirdness in my church and in my own spiritual life that became very confusing. It's a long crazy story, but part of it, I think, is that my church was so ‘spiritual’ that there was no room for rational thought. The ‘rational mind’ was preached against from the pulpit; my own spiritual experiences were almost always anti-rational. I always felt pushed and pulled in strange directions, compelled to do things that didn't quite make sense, and yet they were ‘spiritual’ enough for me to think God was talking to me. Anyway, my church and my life fell apart. I tried to hold myself together. I went back to school. I took anti-depressants. And this pragmatic rationalism that I was being offered was an enticing contrast to the messed-up spirituality I had come from and had bought into. My faith became quite precarious. There was no answer to any of my questions; all the answers were shallow, trite, and banal.”

To many, Plato’s reason makes more sense than Homer’s mythology. I have had experiences similar to my wife’s friend regarding church and secular education. When Christians leave off the very important ideas in nature, and solely stress the "spiritual" aspects (often more accurately identified as emotional aspects) of faith, they come to a rather impractical way of life. They are in danger of losing touch with reality when they lose touch with the whole.

For the gentile, the first lesson toward faith is creation (nature reveals God’s character). The Jews had an even further step—the oracles of God—in the Law of Moses. Nature is for the Gentiles what the Law is for the Jews.

Christian education does not abandon the natural side of life. The Christian life alone is truly holistic. Wholeness in Christ includes nourishment for the spirit, as well as the body and soul. To section off one or two parts from the complete person is to cease to be practical. One could even say it is to cease being a complete human (spirit, soul and body).

Perhaps Abraham was faithful to see God’s goodness in nature before he believed. God did, after all, show him the stars as symbols of His goodness. Guileless Nathanael had a moment of truth under a tree, and Jesus called him a “true son of Israel.” As a young man, I exercised my natural faculty of sight, and turned my eyes to the stars in honest wonder. God answered me in a fashion so undeniable that I would sooner doubt the sun than the heavenly Light revealed to me.

To negate nature—to lessen its importance—is to miss the first step in seeing God; it is to try to read without learning the alphabet. It has been the strategy of Satan to infuse the study of nature—science—with the pagan philosophy of unbelief. Not only pagan philosophy, but also pagan science is being crammed down the throats of students in secular schools everywhere. Like the Socratic poison, it is killing our nation.

The basic lessons of God’s goodness are fundamentally seen in the created world. The testimony of the natural world is being discredited, not by science, but by the connection of science to pagan philosophy. What is seen in nature is seen, not objectively, but according to the bent of self. If we discredit the alphabet, then how can we read? If philosophy begins when one doubts that a tree is a tree, then one can truly, like “humble” Socrates, "know nothing." How much less can one know the invisible God if one can’t even know if a stone is a stone?

God is seen through the heavens, and under the tree; He is seen in the stable and the carpenter’s shop. As learning the alphabet precedes writing, addition comes before calculus: line upon line, precept upon precept. The manger preceded the Ascension; a flower grows from a seed; a building is built on a foundation, and a foundation is built from a cornerstone. One can begin to know an artist by the art he creates; one can surmise there is a builder by seeing the building.

Relativistic Religion

2008-09-01T19:26:00.000-07:00

The pagans sacrificed to their myths with an instinctual sense of unworthiness. They wanted to obtain their desires, but felt undeserving to obtain them apart from oblation. As we go further down the road of degeneration from mere feelings of guilt, there is a mode of being, which is seen in the one who stands up and says, “I am worthy.” This one sacrifices—perhaps like Cain—out of insane pride, as if he has something to give the gods, which the gods did not first of all give to him.

This is very similar to Aristotle’s idea of the ideal man—completely self-reliant. In his world, the gods—if they exist at all—are like helpless women on welfare, and he is magnanimously generous in showing them pity. This low estate is the habitat of the agnostic relativist. That he even gives God recognition enough to dismiss Him is freely giving homage, in his way of seeing things. Naturally, this is mostly (if not completely) subconscious.

The average pagan has, at least, a healthy sense of guilt. He panders to the gods because he is confused and confounded. In the Malayan jungles, where my Aunt and Uncle were first missionaries, the natives (known as the Sakai) cut themselves to appease the gods whenever they heard thunder. If the thunder did not stop soon enough, they would sacrifice one of their own. Whether or not the Sakai were glad to believe such senselessness one can’t know. One can say, however, that they were very glad to hear the truth of the gospel. But the relativist, strangely, is not. It is as if he lives in the darkness because he likes it…because he has, deep down, chosen it. Like cockroaches fleeing light, relativists run from reality.

In his book, The Everlasting Man, G.K. Chesterton says the philosophers, if anything, were rivals to the priests. The philosopher who claims to be enlightened has abandoned the search for truth upon his arrival—his conclusion—of atheism. There is the wondering seeker, wandering and searching for truth; and there is the static dogmatist, having arrived at his own, concocted destination. Since this one’s thoughts originate with him, they end with him; he is the alpha and omega of his own delusion.

While our American society was mainly built upon the solid foundations of scripture, the unhinged ideals of Homer and Plato (pagan Greek thinkers) have crept in to masquerade as “reason” and “enlightenment.” Along with The Republic, Homer’s The Iliad is seen as the cornerstone of Western Culture. When it comes down to it, The Iliad is essentially about obtaining one's desire through sacrificing to the gods: self-seeking. The Republic teaches people to question and doubt absolutes through the deductive reasoning of Socrates. The “religious” ideas put forth in The Iliad combined with the “secular” ideas of The Republic serve as foundational elements in both pagan religion and pagan philosophy. This is not to say Homer and Plato have nothing good to convey. It's just that their good is too intertwined with evil to swallow the pill whole. When reading their works one must exercise discernment between right and wrong, holy and profane.

That Plato should blaspheme the mythical gods of ancient Greece is understandable. One should not live in superstitious fear of displeasing Athena, or any other mythical being. Nonetheless, the obvious fact that Athena was make-believe should not cancel out the reality of God any more than plastic flowers or faux fur nullify the genuine articles they seek to copy. Illegitimate articles do not abrogate legitimate ones.

The pagan reasoning of Plato, allied with the superstition and selfish gain of Homeric religion, is a deadly combination. In reality, these ideals have always been combined. They are two aspects of the same, forbidden tree. They are at once sectarian and the same.

Our society is being eaten by pagan religion and pagan philosophy. Schools and Governments alike have drunk the poison of humanism. Institutions of higher learning are among the most infected with the venom of unbelief. Islam, of all things, is growing at an astounding rate. Buddhism, despite its many contradictions, continues to expand. Christian education is now more important than ever!

Relativism

2008-08-23T10:57:00.000-07:00

It seems the one absolute to the relativists is that there are no absolutes. That this is a contradiction will at once be obvious to the logician, but to the philosophical magician, it escapes notice in the same way he might make his assistant disappear. When told by a relativist on an airplane that there are no absolutes, my wife's uncle calmly replied, “Are you absolutely sure?” Saying there are absolutely no absolutes is like saying the one law of the jungle is that there is no jungle.

Relativism is essentially the same animal as secularism. Most of the differences between the two approaches are purely technical. Whereas the ideals of secularism can be traced back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, relativism in the Western World is believed to have originated with the Sophists.

Known for their clever thought, the Sophists predate Socrates in fifth century Greece. Plato acknowledged Protagoras as the first professional sophist (i.e. teacher of virtue). Sophists were traveling philosophers who noticed wide variations in customs and beliefs between the many cultures they visited. From their observations, they concluded that everything is subjective to people’s experiences: all is relative.

In certain ways, the Sophists were right. It is that they made relativity an “ism” which made them wrong, essentially. Sophists of today might say, “It’s all good.” There is a universalism about them, which embraces everything from Totem Worship to Environmentalism, Atheism to Zoroastrianism, and nearly everything in between. The only absolute the relativist seems to embrace is that there is neither one God, nor one way.

It is interesting to make a side-note at this juncture, which relates to relativism from the scientific angle. It concerns "The Theory of Relativity.” Einstein was actually not happy with that appellation, because he thought it sounded as if “anything goes.” Moreover, though The Theory of Special Relativity (E=MC2) shows that everything is relative to light, it has been taken by scientists and philosophers (in a kind of sophistry) to mean that everything is relative to the way individuals see things.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle rightly argued against the Sophists, but neither are they quite right themselves. Aristotle held that through the proper employment of reason, one could know truth objectively. This is a reasonable idea, indeed, and a great improvement on the ethereal ideas of Socrates and Plato. The problem all of them had was akin to the problem a man missing his limbs has, or that of a woman missing her sight. They were not altogether incorrect, but their theories were incomplete.

Socrates’ conflicting beliefs that one can know “nothing,” but can know himself, were merely the reverse of relativism; that Plato leaned on his own understanding did not make him un-relativistic, it merely made his scope smaller. The secularist’s world is smaller than the relativist’s, but it is relativistic, nonetheless.

Rather than a universal relativism, secularism holds that all is relative to itself. The philosopher is, after all, superior to the common man. It is not every tribe which knows best, it is the secularist who knows best. By employing one’s own understanding, one can decide which god is real, if any, and which culture is right. Relativism and secularism are alike. Secularism does not leave a blank spot where God should be in the equation; it doesn’t merely pull out Buddha, Mohammed or Zeus. It seats self on the throne as an absolute ruler, deciding between good and evil, right and wrong, according to its own philosophy. And its philosophy is usually built around its particular emotional and cultural habitat. It is no secret that many in Christendom have misguided philosophies as well, but that topic is too big for the present discussion.

One can embrace almost everything, and at the same time embrace nothing, if in all one’s embracing one does not embrace I AM. Embracing the ideas of all religions, all philosophy and anything one can imagine, in the end, is to embrace nothing. It is to embrace figments and thoughts, and figments of thoughts. To embrace I AM is to be more truly universal than the universalist. Apart from the Light of I AM, human reasoning is fallible at best. God's Light alone rightly enlightens.

A Brief History of Modern Secularism

2008-08-17T18:56:00.000-07:00

The American Heritage Dictionary defines secularism as: “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.” The word secularism was coined (1846) by George Jacob Holyoake to denote "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life."

"Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: 1) The improvement of this life by material means. 2) That science is the available providence of man. 3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good" (English Secularism, page 35).

Holyoake fought to abolish oaths required by law, to disestablish the Church, and to secularize public education. He advocated socialism, and widely published the propaganda of “free thought” through magazines and books. Holyoake was an agnostic, and presided as President over the London Secular Society. His successor in that society, Charles Bradlaugh, was a member of the British House of Commons. He had become an atheist as a result of his conclusion that the articles of the Church of England and the four Gospels differed. Holyoake “held that secularism is based simply on the study of nature and has nothing to do with religion, while Bradlaugh claimed that secularism should start with the disproof of religion.”

The ideas of Secularism are obviously not new. A Godless universe, or even a cosmos independent of God, are things that thinkers have speculated about for all of recorded history. One such thinker, Ibn Rushd (1126—1198), otherwise known as Averroes, was a philosopher and scientist. He was born an Andalusian-Arab in Cordoba Spain, and is believed by many to be the father of secular thought in Western Europe. Besides writing original works of his own, Averroes commented extensively on the works of Aristotle and Plato, including The Republic, which is deemed to be one of the cornerstones of Western Thought.

Siger of Brabant (1240—1280’s) was the main torchbearer of Averroes’ teachings in his time. He taught Aristotelianism in its original form, not reconciling it to Christian understanding. Siger essentially said one thing could be true through reason, while the exact opposite could be true through faith; this “double truth” suggested hard facts are reached through science and philosophy, whereas religious truth is reached through faith. In Siger’s view, faith might just as well have been based on J.M. Barrie’s "Neverland" (in his play called Peter Pan), than in the spiritual reality called Heaven.

Siger’s two realms of truth are incongruous; this recycled philosophy of his became known as Averroism. The ideas of Averroism (separation of science and philosophy from religion) influenced the idea of secularism that we have today. Important to note is that the Hebrews had no such dichotomy of secular and spiritual. They did, however, differentiate between the clean and the unclean (Ezekiel 44:23).

Freethinkers developed theses from Siger’s views, which concluded philosophers (such as themselves) are superior to common people. In a very arrogant sense, these secularists hold to the belief that the philosopher, or even the philosophical scientist, is purely objective. While most men do not know what to think for themselves, they know. While one misunderstands his own experience, it is understood and categorized by them. In their view, the secular philosopher/scientist is able, more than any other, to decide what is true or false. The common man might believe the witness of the stars; he may believe the testimony of spring and autumn, but the secularist will know better.

In reality, however, to become secular is to turn off the lights; it is to try to study microscopic organisms with no microscope, and practice astronomy without a telescope. Worse than this, it is to speculate about what one sees, and make fabrications about what one doesn’t. Secular education is a travesty. It is to insist the earth is flat, to demand belief in bottled-up genies, and to reject the idea that the grass is green, or that it is even grass. It is to silence nature by stopping one’s ears and gouging out one’s eyes. It is to forgo the bread by plugging one’s nose to the bakery.

Two Plus Two Equals Five. Or At Least They Think So.

2008-08-08T15:50:00.000-07:00

Aristotle said man is body and soul, and he was right, but not altogether right. He was missing one major part of the person—the spirit. A missing part, after all, can be a big deal. The person with ears and nose, but no eyes, is hardly the person one wants to drive him on his next outing. The blind person may be good at a great many things, but the loss of sight is an impairment. Physical wholeness is taken for granted by so many of us. Yet, wholeness in education is too-often overlooked. It is as if philosophical blindness is just what we have come to expect at schools; we accept it as the norm. Worse, we often don’t even notice the blindness...as if we are blind ourselves. Secular education is misguided because of its incompleteness: it has gone askew because it is blind.

G.K. Chesterton noted, “Falsehood is never so false as when it is very nearly true.” Two plus two isn’t actually five, but it is close. The danger in Godless education is not that the secularists teach algebra and astronomy; it is that their overarching philosophy—godlessness—is a kind of defiling thing. It is a blend of fact and fiction, myth and reality. A false equation only has to be missing the tiniest detail to be wrong, but secularism misses the biggest part. Replace manure for chocolate in a batch of brownies and see how edible they are. The one foul ingredient defiles all the rest. It is like committing adultery with a prostitute while declaring fidelity to one’s wife; Light and darkness are incompatible.

Secular education cannot include God, because belief in Him would contradict its teachings. Thus, the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness. God is subtracted from the equation and replaced with the ideology of humanism. Christian education, on the other hand, can include subjects like science and astronomy, because these teachings do not contradict the existence of God.

Cosmos or Chaos?

2008-08-04T19:26:00.000-07:00

When one begins to explain an apparently simple object, such as an egg or a mushroom—anything to do with life—one finds the task to be more complex than it would seem. To say that an egg is oval is to describe the surface of the thing; to say it contains trillions of protons, neutrons and electrons and everything needful to sustain life (molecules, atoms and DNA) is to go a bit deeper. To explain something as simple as a beam of light could seem easy enough, but even Einstein spent most of his life pondering this simple yet complicated element of nature.

In a similar way, it would prove deficient to classify everything into categories of good and bad, or even good and evil, for the matter goes much deeper than it would seem. God’s division between life and death, the clean and the unclean, is not an easy equation for the human mind to grasp on its own. It is no wonder that mystics and pagan philosophers do not see the whole. Without the all-encompassing perspective of Christ, everything is but a jumbled mess of fragments and shards.

The word “philosophy” means the love of wisdom. To the Christian, philosophy is the love of Christ, for He is Wisdom. His Light alone rightly enlightens. “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) was the first command. God brought order to the chaos by speaking; it was the Holy Spirit brooding over the surface of the deep Who brought God’s commands to fruition.

Later, God spoke to Adam and Eve; He forbade them to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil…because He was protecting them from chaos, darkness and death. The man and woman, sadly, refused God’s instruction. They listened to the serpent’s lie and became the first students of knowledge without God. Secular education is nothing new.

Christ-Centered Education: A Holistic Approach

2008-07-31T08:16:00.000-07:00

Many people think Christian education only has to do with God, the Bible and faith, and in a way it does. Since everything is ultimately related to these, Christian education is not relegated to mere theology in the commonly known sense of the word. One could say that the arts and sciences are every bit as theological as the study of sacred text; from architecture to zoology, everything, at the core, is the study of God. Tangible nature displays His glory, and if we want to know Him better, the world of creation can help us. Truly, everything can be a form of theology (not to say that everything is God, as pantheists believe).

G.K. Chesterton wisely says:

“That ‘God looked on all things and saw that they were good’ contains a subtlety… It is the thesis that there are no bad things, but only bad uses of things. If you will, there are no bad things, but only bad thoughts; and especially bad intentions. It is possible to have bad intentions about good things; and good things, like the world and the flesh, have been twisted by a bad intention called the devil. But he cannot make things bad.”

One might add that things are good so long as they are in their proper place. To name a couple of examples, sex outside of marriage is not good; perfectly good cells, when out of order, can turn into cancer. The misuse and malformation of good things causes the evil of chaos.

Historian, Will Durant, said, “If knowledge became too great for communication, it would degenerate into scholasticism.” Durant rightly conveys the idea that factualism does not engender wisdom and understanding. Knowledge is good as long as it fits neatly within God's cosmos.