A new crescendo
I am writing these words as the sun rises on this blessed gift of a Spring day, and as seven of my grandchildren are getting dressed and ready to head off to school. Yes, I am grateful that they’ll be heading off to Christian schools, where they’ll continue to be formed and nurtured by a Christian education that arises from a Christian understanding of the world, of life, of human beings, of truth and right.
As their grandfather, I am deeply invested in this discussion about the legitimacy of Christian education.
As a pastor-theologian, I am joining others in sounding the alarm signaling the astonishing rise in attacks against Christian education, coming not from the outside, but from inside the Reformed and Presbyterian community.
As a Christian cultural observer—which means (1) an observer of Christian cultural endeavors, and (2) an observer of cultural endeavors who is a Christian—I am reporting this morning that overnight, the whirring sound has reached a new crescendo.
The sound, that is, of our Reformed and Presbyterian forebears spinning in their graves.
Perched atop the pyramid of institutions purporting to provide Christian education, ensconced as Assistant Professor of Classics at Calvin College, Dr. David C. Noe is aiding and abetting the enemies of Christian education in this, our rapidly secularizing and paganizing North American culture.
We’re getting shot in the back, folks.
Yet, what the Reformed and Presbyterian community of Christian believers is experiencing today cannot even be called “friendly fire.” Friendly fire is any unintentional discharge or misdirection of firepower or other weapons of war, in an armed conflict, against combatants who are on the same side. The attacks we’re experiencing in this battle for the public, life-encompassing, light-shining, salt-seasoning demonstration of God’s sovereignty and Christ’s royal authority, are neither unintentional nor misdirected, though they are coming from combatants on the same side.
Cornelius Van Til
Meet one of our forebears whose application of the Christian faith to life lived in the academy, the marketplace, the laboratory, and the factory constitutes a legacy among Reformed and Presbyterian believers.
For the remainder of this blog post, I’ll invite you to read some of what Cornelius Van Til wrote about common grace, Christian education, and our calling.
First this:
The conclusion of the whole matter is this. There are two mutually exclusive principles for the interpretation of life. The Christian principle presupposes God who speaks authoritatively through the Bible, giving man basic principles for the interpretation of the whole of life. The non-Christian principle presupposes man who speaks authoritatively of himself. Psychologically, of course, the Christian must also begin with man. But he begins with man acknowledged as the creature of God. So, it is still true that the Christian interprets all of life in terms of God and the non-Christian interprets all of life in terms of man (88).
Then this:
If God’s gifts of common grace such as “rain and sunshine,” are thus seen as being a part of God’s general call to repentance, then believers must also include that in their “testimony” to unbelievers. Believers have by grace repented from sin and undertaken their cultural task anew. They ask unbelievers to join them in a common obedience to God through Christ. “It is for that reason,” they testify, “that God’s good gifts are given you. We beseech you, in Christ’s name, be ye reconciled to God.” It is God’s longsuffering patience which would lead you to repentance that enables you to do all those things which “for the matter of them” are “in themselves praiseworthy and useful.” God intends to accomplish his ultimate end, the establishment of his kingdom. That is the reason why you are now able to contribute positively to the coming of that kingdom. The harps you make, the oratorios you produce, the great poems you have written, the scientific discoveries you have made will, with your will or against your will, all find their place in the unified structure of the kingdom of God through Christ. Now, then, in God’s name repent, for otherwise the Israelites will “borrow” your treasures and you shall perish in the Red Sea like the Egyptians (91).
And finally this:
The Reformed community, we conclude, must follow its own educational program. Much as it appreciates what is done by brethren of non-Reformed Christian persuasion, it is on the Reformed basis alone that a comprehensive Christian view of life can be set over against the world of unbelief. Only the Reformed view shows the full power of Christianity in meeting the challenge of the wisdom of the world and in offering men, with the pleading voice of the Christ who wept over the multitudes of Jerusalem, the reward of their labor for this life and the life to come. The Reformed community takes no delight in building alone. It takes no delight in living in ecclesiastical isolation. But if there is reason for it to live and to work alone ecclesiastically then there is the same reason for working alone educationally. And yet our hope is not to work alone forever. Our aim is the ultimate good of all who love the gospel and all those who should love the truth (92).
All of this cited from Van Til’s publicly available, Internet accessible, Essays on Christian Education (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974).
Like this:
Like Loading...
Thank you for your comments, Dr. Kloosterman. As I was reading the OS article (and when I discussed the contours of it with others), what immediately came to mind was that if God converted a Tour de France cyclist between one year’s event and the next, there would be a large difference in his cycling. The most visible difference that stood out to us was that he would *not* be engaging in the Tour de France because it violates the Fourth Commandment, since it runs on Sunday (particularly if the man was converted in the ministry of a confessional Presbyterian church).
So it seems to me with other “natural” or “common grace” endeavors: a Christian business will not be open on Sunday (amongst other differences); a Christian profession baseball league will not hold games on Sunday (amongst other differences). A Christian plumber will not perform (non-emergency) work on Sunday (amongst other differences).
So it strikes me that it is legitimate to use the adjective “Christian” for almost any endeavor Christians might have in common with non-Christians since the Christian ought to have in mind the whole of God’s revelation as he/she engages in the endeavor.
I think this maintains that the unregenerate can really engage in “common grace” endeavors, like playing professional baseball (even though he sins by playing it on Sunday) yet also that the Christian is called to play baseball differently because (amongst other things) he does not play it on Sunday.
As a side note, perhaps those who follow a more Klinean trajectory of thought might permit engaging in professional activities on Sunday because of their view of the Fourth Commandment, yet it seems to me that those who hold to the Westminster Standards’ teaching on the Fourth Commandment would not go along with (some of) Kline’s followers on this point.
One other note, perhaps 1 Timothy 4:4-5 needs to be brought in more into this overall discussion, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” (ESV) It seems to me that the NL2K persons rightly hold to vs 4 but neglect accounting for vs 5. These verses from seem to me to summarize the biblical balance between common grace and the antithesis, and adding the adjective “Christian” to a noun helps to account for the biblical teaching of verse 5.
Thanks, Talman, for this very helpful comment!
From CVT’s “Foundations of Christian Education” (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990):
“Non-Christians believe that the personality of the child can develop best if it is not placed face to face with God. Christian believe that the child’s personality cannot develop at all unless it is placed face to face with God. Non-Christian education puts the child in a vacuum. In this vacuum the child is expected to grow. The result is that the child dies. Christian education alone really nurtures personality because it alone gives the child air and food.”
“Non-Christians believe that authority hurts the growth of the child. Christians believe that without authority a child cannot live at all.”
“The only reason why we are justified in having Christian schools is that we are convinced that outside of a Christian-theistic atmosphere there can be no more than an empty process of one abstraction teaching abstractness to other abstractions.”
“No teaching of any sort is possible except in Christian schools.”
“The ground for the necessity of Christian schools lies in this very thing, that no fact can be known unless it be known in its relationship to God. And once this point is clearly seen, the doubt as to the value of teaching arithmetic in Christian schools falls out of the picture. Of course arithmetic must be taught in a Christian school. It cannot be taught anywhere else.”
“…if you cannot teach arithmetic to the glory of God, you cannot do it any other way because it cannot be done any other way by anybody.”
“On the basis of our opponents the position of the teacher is utterly hopeless. He knows that he knows nothing and that in spite of this fact he must teach. He knows that without authority he cannot teach and that there are no authorities to which he can appeal. He has to place the child before an infinite series of possibilities and pretend to be able to say something about the most advisable attitude to take with respect to the possibilities, and at the same time he has to admit that he knows nothing at all about those possibilities. And the result for the child is that he is not furnished with an atmosphere in which he can live and grow.”
Wow, really? There’s antithesis, and then there’s antithesis on steriods.
I don’t know of any 2kers advocating Christians breaking the moral law. If all Christian education means is not studying on Sunday and not getting into fights at recess (6th commandment), I don’t think you’ll find much opposition from Reformed 2kers. I don’t think that necessitates Christian schools.
Thanks for responding, John. I’m not sure I understand the point of some of your comments, since my commentary on the Noe article nowhere identifies this as involving “2kers,” or as advocating Christians breaking God’s law.
What necessitates Christian schools is precisely what Cornelius Van Til observed about the two mutually exclusive principles or worldviews for understanding and interpreting reality. What necessitates Christian schools is the antithesis between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, and between serving God and idolizing human autonomy. Education is far more that data input; education involves the formation of the entire person, not abstractly, but covenantally, relationally. Because education of mind, heart, and will is of one piece, for the Christian, education must be involve the full integrated of general and special revelation, with the latter shedding light on, and supplying the interpretative key for, the former.
Dr. Kloosterman,
I was responding to Mr. Wagenmaker; I apologize for any misunderstanding. I may have misunderstood him too, but I thought he was suggesting that the visible difference between the Christian and non-Christian cyclist or student was that the Christian follows the moral law. If that’s the case, there’s no disagreement with Dr. Noe (or any other 2k proponent). Skipping the Tour de France is precisely the kind of cultural engagement you can expect from a 2k Christian cyclist.
You’re correct that the question hinges on worldview and antithesis. I think Dr. Noe is saying there is no distinctive Christian philosophical perspective, no Christian worldview, and no need for a distinctively Christian education. I can’t really add anything to that discussion, I just wanted to be sure we were being clear on where the disagreement lies.
Thanks for the clarification, John. That is very helpful.
Dear John,
I will try to be clear in my response. I will also try to be charitable in my attempt at being clear, but as things sound abrupt (e.g. “you wrote”) please do not take that as coming in a harsh tone.
You wrote, “If all Christian education means is not studying on Sunday… I don’t think that necessitates Christian schools.”
First, I wrote several times “(amongst other differences),” which there are more differences. Let me try to be clearer: there are other differences than seeking to obey the Fourth Commandment.
Second, I disagree when you say “If all Christian education means is not studying on Sunday… ***I don’t think that necessitates Christian schools***.” (emphasis added). If the only thing wrong with a particular educational establishment is that it requires its students to attend classes on Sunday, that alone *would* necessitate a consistent Christian school (or homeschool). This means having not just students who are Christians (to draw from Noe’s argument) but an educational establishment that seeks to glorify God such that all things within its orbit are “made holy by the word of God and prayer” (I Timothy 4:5). You wrote, in essence, that 2kers don’t “advocate Christians breaking the moral law.” Then, it seems to me to follow, that if a particular club, establishment, etc. requires its members to break the moral law (e.g. engage in the activity on the Lord’s Day) then if someone wishes to engage in the activity done by that club, establishment, etc. they have to set up a parallel, Christian club, establishment, etc. The Christian is “shut out,” not because he cannot cycle or learn or perform the acts of a plumber, but because he refuses to do these things in violation of the whole Word of God because he honors the Word of God (I Timothy 4:5).
Why bring this up? Dr. Noe brought this up. He referenced the Tour de France. Dr. Noe wrote that if a man would be converted between one year’s event and the next there would be no difference. Let me quote from his article: “I can watch on my television as three hundred cyclists climb the Alps and then race through the streets of Paris toward the finish line, not having any idea whatsoever which one is engaged in Christian cycling and which is practicing Jewish cycling perhaps or Hindu cycling.” I disagree with Dr. Noe. The 2012 Tour de France is scheduled to end on Sunday, July 22. So, it seems to me, that because the Tour finishes on the Lord’s Day, I have a very definite idea that *all* those engaged in it are *not* Christians, or are Christians who are not (consistently) cycling to the glory of God. What Dr. Noe claims to be impossible, I contend a confessional Presbyterian child could do with ease.
In what I just wrote, let me try to be crystal clear, I realize Dr. Noe says in the very next sentence, “In other words, the activity itself, though practiced by a Christian, has really not changed at all in and of itself.” I realize that Dr. Noe says his point isn’t the Lord’s Day, and I charitably assume Dr. Noe would modify his example or choose another example to avoid a conflict with the Fourth Commandment. However, this still shows the point: in real life, in life where you and I and everyone else lives, what Dr. Noe says is an abstraction and so has limited value. He writes “the activity itself, though practiced by a Christian, has really not changed at all in and of itself,” but the example he uses is the Tour de France!
A Christian cannot consistently join in the common grace activity of cycling in the Tour de France. A Christian can consistently join in the common grace activity of cycling and so he can form his own group that cycles on days other than Sunday (NB: amongst other things) such that the activity of cycling is “made holy by the Word of God and prayer” (I Timothy 4:5). This is real life.
Again, I ask, why bring this up? Because I have heard some NL2K advocates disagree with the *legitimacy* of Christian education, Christian baseball leagues, Christian worker unions, etc. (let me be clear, perhaps not all NL2K disagree with the legitimacy, but some do). These argue that such “Christian” things are invalid. And in their arguing they rhetorically ask, in effect, “how does a Christian plumber’s product differ from an unbelieving plumber’s product?” To quote Dr. Noe, “This means the fact that I am a Christian would make no observable difference in either process or result when it comes to educating students in Plato. If so, why give the adjective ‘Christian’ to education?” Do you see? He goes from something in isolation (the activity itself) to real life (giving the adjective Christian to something) and it doesn’t work to make that leap. In real life, we do not separate the product (or “activity” or “process” or “result” as Dr. Noe says) into its own hermetically-sealed container; we do not live that way. The education Dr. Noe imparts to his students happens at an institution that must decide whether to hold class on Sunday; Dr. Noe must decide whether to hold study sessions on Sunday (unless the institution has something about this in its rules).
Let me be clear, I realize there are other issues out there than keeping the Fourth Commandment. Let me be clear, I am focusing on just one issue, keeping the Fourth Commandment. Let me be clear, this area (i.e. keeping the Fourth Commandment) is important enough to legitimize “Christian” institutions, clubs, leagues, etc. because it concerns the law of God, the Fourth Commandment, which every confessional Presbyterian would agree with.
I hope I been clear and charitable in my response.
Mr. Wagenmaker,
For some reason I can’t hit reply to your last post.
I can’t speak for Dr. Noe, but I don’t think he thought about the fact that the Tour’s on Sunday. Either that or he’s not a Sabbatarian.
You’re probably right that some 2k people don’t recognize how often we’ll have to obey God rather than man in common pursuits, but I still don’t think that means we often have to set up separate Christian institutions, especially schools. No secular school I’ve been a part of has required me to study on Sunday or otherwise violate my conscience. And when an organization does ask you to sin, you can usually say no. I think in our society being shut out for following the moral law is pretty rare.
I just want it to be clear that the disagreement here is over worldview and the antithesis, exemplified by the Van Til quotes above and your understanding of 1 Tim 4:5, not issues like the Sabbath and the moral law.
Wow, if I ever hire anybody to write software for my company (that’s a job that surely requires a grasp of arithmetic) I better make sure they were taught in a Christian school. On second thought, maybe I don’t need to worry about it after all, because if somebody survived to an age that they made it to a job interview, he must have had an atmosphere in which he was able to live and grow. Otherwise he’d be small and dead.
Not sure this earlier posted response got tagged to the right comment:
Indeed! The OPC leaders of that day were muscular! As are their true spiritual children today.
Dear Ruberad,
I’m not sure that I should be responding to your reply. You are citing and discussing a source that I don’t have in hand at the moment, mentioned by a certain Zrim. I wish I could reply ad rem, but any attempt to do so would violate a couple of my own self-regulating principles of Internet discourse.
(1) When citing an author, always cite page numbers (along with full bibliographical information), so one’s interlocutor can evaluate the use to which citations are being put. This helps avoid drive-by quoting.
(2) Before interacting, always look up the citations with a view to assessing their original context, their import, and their place in an author’s overall argument. I confess to having a personal fetish for looking up an author’s footnotes, and if he should dare refer to a thinker whose corpus of writings appeared in a foreign language, to assess the author’s claim in terms of that foreign language corpus. This helps identify the widespread contemporary crime of intellectual kidnapping.
So, I might presume to explain what I think Van Til may have meant by the claims cited from “Foundations of Christian Education.” I might suggest, for example, that many of the claims cited are related to the very Van Tilian notion that outside of Jesus Christ, the unbeliever cannot really know that and why and for what purpose 2+2=4. Genuine knowledge, genuine teaching, genuine anything occurs only in Christ.
But without wishing to irritate or annoy you, I’d rather redirect our focus back to the Dr. Noe’s insistence that outside the church there is no “Christian education.” Do you agree with his insistence?
Dr. Kloosterman,
I agree with Noe’s statement as he qualified it: “the most we can say about “Christian education” is that it is education delivered or provided by Christians. This, of course, is not an unimportant claim….it seems there may be no such thing as Christian education after all, at least not in the sense in which it seems often used…”
As you noted, there may be some additional context for Zrim’s quotes from Van Til, but quotes like “No teaching of any sort is possible except in Christian schools….…if you cannot teach arithmetic to the glory of God, you cannot do it any other way because it cannot be done any other way by anybody” seem to intentionally preclude such qualifications as you would want to grant to Van Til.
And the final paragraph about the hypothetical pagan teacher is surely absurd. “He knows that he knows nothing…” Really? Apart from the self-contradiction in that assertion, and granting for argument’s sake a sense in which a non-Christian knows nothing, does he also really know that he knows nothing?
Dear RubeRad,
Thanks for responding to this. Again, I must be cautious in evaluating your claims, since I don’t have the original before me.
That said, could we not understand Van Til to be speaking of a culpable knowledge that is really ignorance? Of the Romans 1 and 2 variety? Romans 1.21 says, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” The “knowledge” of the unbeliever is enough to render him without excuse (therefore culpable), but inadequate to serve as a basis for constructive wisdom (therefore ignorance).
The point of disagreement regarding whether such a thing as Christian education exists involves at least this component, namely, whether Van Til was correct in his assessment of the ethical and epistemological antithesis between the believing mind and the unbelieving mind. Christian education, as it has been historically understood and defended by people like Louis Berkhof, J. Gresham Machen, Henry Schultze, Cornelius Van Til, and scores of other thinkers in the Reformed and Presbyterian world, arose exactly from this assessment.
By way of sincere dialogue, I invite you to consider this: If there is no such thing as Christian education, is there then such a phenomenon as “the Christian mind”? I would think that if the former negative is true, the latter negative must follow. And if there is no such thing as “the Christian mind,” is there such a thing as “Christian nurture”? I’d be interested in knowing why (not).
I’m asking this trail of questions because I think they are logically and theologically connected.
And surely as someone who seems to agree with Dr. Noe’s perspective, you cannot be surprised if people are deeply puzzled, and more, to hear a professor at Calvin College deny the existence of such a thing as Christian education as that has historically been understood and defended for generations within the very denomination that owns Calvin College? Would he be having his job, had his view prevailed throughout the twentieth century?
Thanks again.
Nelson Kloosterman