Recently for Torrey Academy we read the book Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton. This is a classic work on the “romance” of Christianity. Within the book, the fat yet jolly and jocular Chesterton, wittily describes the nature of sanity and insanity.  He basically argues that one who is sane views life more as a fairy tale rather than as lifeless routine.  For the one who is sane, there is a wonder, an oddity, a sublime obscurity to reality.  The fact that things occur over and over again-i.e. the sun rising- is viewed not so much as a mechanical fact, but as an argument for a divine magician who performs the same magic consistently due to the joy that comes from the beauty therein.  The insane person is the one driven to death by their reason attached to no root.  As he says, the poet only seeks to put his head in the heavens, the logician wants to put the heavens in his head.  His head, therefore, explodes as a result.

Chesterton relates the idea of seeing the world as a new magical place everyday to the joy of being a Christian.  This idea is so profound it’s a wonder I constantly forget it.  Here is what he says:

“The Christian Church in its practical relation to my soul is a living teacher, not a dead one.  It not only certainly taught me yesterday, but will almost certainly teach me to-morrow.  Once I saw suddenly the meaning of the shape of the cross; someday I may see suddenly the meaning of the shape of the mitre.  One fine morning I saw why windows were pointed; some fine morning I may see why priests were shaven.  Plato has told you a truth; but Plato is dead.  Shakespeare has startled you with an image; but Shakespeare will not startle you with any more. 

But imagine what it would be to live with such men still living, to know that any moment Shakespeare might shatter everything with a single song.  The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare to-morrow at breakfast.  He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before.”  

So often I forget that my faith is not dead, but is alive.  That is, so often I go through the day down-trodden and burdened by life’s stresses forgetting that a new truth awaits to be seen.  It seems that the agony of stress and the labor of life are sometimes necessary to experience the joy of new truth.  Yet sometimes I wonder if I’ll ever truly live in the way Chesterton describes in the midst of my burdens.  I long to see and experience life as a joyous journey in pursuit of the Good, True, and Beautiful.  To live life in praise, and to only allow stress and burdens to interlude.

For as Chesterton says, “Man is more himself, man is more manlike, when joy is the fundamental thing in him, and grief the superficial.  Melancholy should be an innocent interlude, a tender and fugitive frame of mind; praise should be the permanent pulsation of the soul.  Pessimism is a best an emotional half-holiday; joy is the uproarious labour by which all things live.”

Amen and Amen.

In the book Surprised by Joy Lewis tells the following:

“Many chapters ago I mentioned a boy who lived near us and who had tried, quite unsuccessfully, to make friends with my brother and myself. His name was Arthur and he was my brother’s exact contemporary; he and I had been at Campbell together though we never met. I think it was shortly before the beginning of my last term at Wyvern that I received a message saying that Arthur was in bed, convalescent, and would welcome a visit. I can’t remember what led me to accept this invitation, but from some reason I did.

I found Arthur sitting up in bed. On the table besid him lay a copy of Myths of Norsemen.

Do you like that? said I.

Do you like that? said he.

Next moment the book was in our hands, our heads were bent close together, we were pointing, quoting, talking–soon almost shouting–discovering in a torrent of questions that we liked not only the same thing, but the same parts of it and in the same way; that both knew the stab of joy and that, for both, the arrow was shot from the North.

Many thousands of people have had the experience of finding the first friend, and it is none the less a wonder; as great a wonder…as first love, or even a greater. I had been so far from thinking such a friend possible that I had never even longed for one; no more than I longed to be King of England. If I had found that Arthur had independently built up an exact replica of the Boxonian world I should not really have been much more surprised. Nothing, I suspect, is more astonishing in any man’s life than the discovery that there do exist people very, very like himself“

-C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy p. 130-131.

Often friendship is taken for granted. Many might even think of friendship as something to just expect in life. “Love” is a divine, but friendship? It is something one “needs” but not too often is one seriously attempted to worship ‘friendship.’ But, love is constantly something that people tend to worship and people even go as far turning the idea that God is love, in to Love is God.

Yet, the truth of the matter is that friendship is a divine and heavenly gift, especially when one has friends that are based around pursuing that which is good, true, and beautiful.

Lewis communicates this deep and significant truth in the above quote from Surprised by Joy. He makes an astonishing claim that friendship is a great a wonder as falling in love!

In my pursuit and oft-idealization of “falling in love” I fail to forget God’s grace in granting me friends whom I can love, prayer for, and, ultimately grow in righteousness and holiness together. I fail to forget the wonder and beauty that friendship offers

How are we to pursue and view friendship?

Aristotle famously distinguished between three types of friendship. Each friendship is distinguished based on the motive for which they were formed.

“They whose motive is utility have no friendship for one another really, but only in so far as some good arises to them from one another. And those whose motive is pleasure are in like case: I mean, they have friendship for men of easy peasantry, not because they are of a given character but because they are pleasant to themselves. So then they whose motive to friendship is utility love their friends for what is good to themselves; those whose motive is pleasure do so for what is pleasurable to themselves: that is to say, not in so far as the friend beloved is but in so far as he is useful or pleasurable…Now it is the nature of utility not to be permanent but constantly varying: so, of course, when the motive which made them friends is vanished, the friendship likewise dissolves; since it existed only relatively to those circumstances…. That then is perfect friendship which subsists between those who are good and whose similarity consists in their goodness: for these men wish one another’s good in similar ways; in so far as they are good (and good they are in themselves): and those are specially friends who wish good to their friends for their sakes, because they feel thus towards them on their own account and not as mere matter of result; so the friendship between these men continues to subsist so long as they are good; and goodness, we know, has in it a principle of permanence.” – Nicomachean Ethics.

In summary, Aristotle believes the only true or lasting form of friendship is that friendship which consists in the person’s motive being for the good of the other. This type of friendship is only possible when the person is himself good because being good themselves is the only way one can understand the very goodness of good. In this experience of the good, they long to share it.

Earlier, Aristotle spoke of men being attracted to that which they are like. Lewis also gives an example of this above. If we take this principle as true then within the friendships that are based on goodness it can also be said that they are mutually pleasurable and useful because each man finds pleasure in that which has a likeness to his own nature, and, in general, good people are useful to others.

So the third form of friendship Aristotle distinguishes is by definition the best kind of friendship because it combines all the types of friendship.

So what must one do to have the best kind of friendship? One must first become good themselves. Becoming good allows one to see the ‘goodness of good’ and to then desire to give good to another.

Sometimes we tend to think that our becoming good is an isolated event that has no direct impact on the lives of those around us. Yet, it should be understood that one’s becoming good actually has an effect on others; for in so far as this happens it is likely that one is actually desiring and helping those around him to experience goodness. This effect is grounded by the fact that man by virtue of being man desires friendship, and will, whether good or bad, pursue friends and impact others.

It’s a great to know that by pursuing the good in life, I can myself become a better friend to my roommates and others around me. Through seeking to know God and understanding His character I am also simultaneously helping my friends and working toward their good.

Thomas Aquinas offers a persuasive argument in Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7:

“The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith. For that with which the human reason is naturally endowed is clearly most true; so much so, that is is impossible for us to think of such truths as false. Nor is it permissible to believe as false that which we hold by faith, since this is confirmed in a way that is so clearly divine. Since, therefore, only the false is opposed to the true, as is clearly evident from examination of their definitions, it is impossible that truth of faith should be opposed to those principles that the human reason knows naturally.”

“Therefore, we can say that either Christianity is false, or reason is false, or–if both are true — there can never be any real contradiction at all between them, since truth cannot contradict truth.” Kreeft, p.
Aquinas continues:

“Furthermore, that which is introduced into the soul of the student by the teacher is contained in the knowledge of the teacher– unless his teaching is fictitious, which it is improper to say of God. Now the knowledge of the principles that are known to us naturally has been implanted in us by God; for God is the Author of our nature. These principles, therefore, are also contained by the divine Wisdom. Hence, whatever is opposed to them is opposed to the divine Wisdom and therefore cannot come from God. That which we hold by faith as divinely revealed, therefore, cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge.

“From this we evidently gather the following conclusions: whatever arguments are brought forward against the doctrines of faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles embedded in nature. Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either probable or sophistical (fallacious). And so there exists the possibility to answer them.

Aquinas here is basically saying that any argument against Christianity doctrine has a rational mistake in it somewhere, and therefore can be answered by reason alone.

To this end, I am unsure if I agree with Aquinas. On the one hand, he seems to have a compelling argument as it simply follows from the first premise that if “Christianity is true”.. then “Christian irrationalism is false.”

One reason for my hesitancy is that it seems to imply that one can simply show all other worldviews against Christianity to be false by reason alone. Consequently, this seems to suggest that one can just do this to prove Christianity’s legitimacy or truth by reason alone.

Yet, on second thought this does not seem to follow, although it seems like it might be a temptation to some.

It must be clear that Aquinas is not claiming that all Christian Doctrines can be proved by reason alone only that every argument against them can be disproved.

My roommate and I just had a lively discussion on basically what came down to this question: What is the relationship between faith and reason?

This relationship has been something that has been discussed and debated for centuries, and the importance of the answer cannot be minimized.

In his book on Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft says this:

“In a sense the marriage of faith and reason is the most important question in apologetics because it is the overall question. If faith and reason are not wedded partners, if faith and reason are divorced or incompatible, like cats and birds, then apologetics is impossible. For apologetics is the attempt to ally reason with faith, to defend the faith with reason’s weapons.”

Kreeft proceeds to distinguish between acts of faith and objects of faith as well as acts of reason and objects reason, respectively. Here we are concerned specifically with the objects of faith and their relation to the objects of reason.

The object of faith can be defined as “all the things believed.” So for Christians this means all that God has revealed in the Bible. This type of faith is expressed in propositions though it can be said that the propositions are not the ultimate objects of faith, only the proximate objects. The proximate objects are manifold or various, but the “ultimate object of faith is one.” “The propositions are the map or structure of faith; God is the real existing object of faith.”

The object of reason means “all that reason can know.” Aristotle famously distinguishes between “three acts of the mind” that are relevant to this notion of “all that reason can know.” It means all the truths that can be
a.) understood by reason- w/o faith
b.) discovered by human reason to be true
c.) proved logically without any premises assumed by faith in divine revelation.

It is important to emphasize that both “faith” and “reason” are relative to truth. “Reason is a way of knowing truth; understanding it or proving it. Faith is a way of discovering truth.

So what is the relation between the objects of faith and the objects of reason?

Kreeft overviews 5 possible relations that any two things or class of things have:

All A’s are B’s, but not all B’s are A’s

All B’s are A’s, but not all A’s are B’s

All A’s are B’s and all B’s are A’s

No A’s are B’s and no B’s are A’s

Some but not all A’s are B’s and some not all B’s are A’s.

These applied to the relation of faith and reason come out as follows:
1. All that is known by faith is also known by reason, but not all that is known by reason is known by faith. Faith is then a subclass of reason.
This category would be known as rationalism. Christians who believe you can prove the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation through strict philosophical arguments fall into this category.

2. All that is known by reason is also known by faith, but not all that is known by faith is known by reason. Reason is then a subclass of faith.
This category would be known as fideism. Fideism contends that the only knowledge, or at least the only certain knowledge, we can have is by faith.

3. All that is known by faith is known by reason too, and all that is known by reason is know by faith. Faith and reason are interchangeable.
This understanding is so utterly not held that it’s really not even worth talking about.

4. Nothing that is known by faith is known by reason, and nothing that is known by reason is known by faith. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive.
The category would be known as dualism. Dualism simply divorces faith and reason by placing them in two different departments. “Usually it does this by a.) reducing reason to scientific, mathematical, or empirical reasoning and b.) reducing faith to a personal, subjective attitude.”

5. Some but not all that is known by faith is also known by reason, and some but not all that is known by reason is also known by faith. Faith and reason partly overlap.
This category distinguishes three kinds of truths and it is the one most believe is the most reasonable and correct.

a) Truths of faith and not of reason:
Truths of faith alone are things revealed by God but not understandable, discoverable or provable by reason (e.g. Trinity).

b.) Truths of both faith and reason:
Truths of faith and reason are things revealed by God but also understandable, discoverable, or provable by reason (i.e. objective moral law).

c.) Truths of reason and not of faith:
Truths of reason and not of faith are things not revealed by God but known by human reason (e.g. the natural sciences).

Kreeft continues by expounding two task for the Christian apologist:

The Christian apologist must “prove all the propositions in class b and to answer all objections to the propositions in class a.”

The Christian cannot prove The Trinity without divine revelation; this is something that must be accepted on faith not merely by reason. Yet, the Christian can answer (and must) objections to the Trinity that deem the Trinitarian concept irrational.

Kreeft concludes this segment by giving some useful balance in our use of reason:

“The Doctrine of the Fall teaches us that human nature, and thus human reason, is corrupted, but still valid and usable- like a crippled body. It can walk, unlike rocks, but not well. We must distinguish reason de facto (“in reality” or “in fact”) and reason de jure (“by law” or “by right”), or reason in its everyday use and reason in itself, or reason improperly used and reason properly used. Used properly, it is powerful but not all-powerful. Reason can persuade you to walk to the beach, but you must make the leap of faith into the sea of the living God. Fideism says it can’t even bring you to the beach; rationalism says it can put you into the sea.”

Part 2 will seek to answer this question: Can faith and reason every contradict each other?

Currently, I am immersed in reading Dr. John Mark Reynold’s (Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Biola University) unpublished (and heavily unedited) copy of his upcoming book “Athens and Jerusalem: The Triumph of Faith and Reason.” In the third chapter he summarizes Plato’s big three ideas: the theory of recollection, the theory of the forms, and the idea of the soul. I don’t plan on going into all the details of these ideas, but I want to post some comments of his that are particularly related to Platos theory of Recollection as well as how this idea has related to learning for myself:

“Recollection is not merely bringing to mind an intellectual concept once forgotten. For Plato, the idea is far more powerful. As a human is helped to recall, he passes through stages of thought and experience. he cannot rationally justify his satisfaction every step on the way. The would-be philosopher may make use of likely stories…, dialectic, and hypothesis to stimulate his memory. Once the memory is triggered, it seizes his mind, and his is changed. He can no longer doubt the truth of what he has remembered. He also understands the reasons for each step in the rational journey that led him to the recollection. Further memories of goodness, truth, and beauty are more likely. In fact, correctly used this one truth can be the key to unlock every important idea that he has forgotten.

Dr. Reynolds continues by describing the nature of this recollection experience, as understood according to Plato:

“This recollection is the most real experience a human being can have. It will seize every part of his being. Love for goodness drives the true philosopher to this recollection of truth. Once he finds it, this addiction to the overwhelming beauty of truth and goodness will keep him pursuing it. He will feel it emotionally and physically. Plato compares this experience to sex, to being dazzled by a great light, and to the most beautiful music that can be imagined. The true philosopher is the person who has had the mental, emotional, and gut level experience of truth. There is no need to encourage such a philosopher to continue his studies. The difficulty will be in getting him to do anything else.”

Those last couple sentences continually echoe in my ear. It’s fascinating how deeply and profoundly this has become true in my life. I don’t mean to say that I have become the latest and greatest “true philosopher”, only I mean that in my experience of learning I find that the more and more I immerse myself in pursuing and understanding truth the more and more I want to see it and taste it. Particularly influential in helping me to have this desire was the late C.S. Lewis. Coincedentally, or rather not so coincedentally, his teaching style is akin to Plato’s method as well. Lewis is a master at helping the student begin to desire truth. Furthermore, much like Plato he is able to imbed his worldview in a beautiful story that not only captures the mind, but the heart and soul as well. He allows the reader to see and begin to pursue the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Interestingly enough, my life has not always had an ardent desire to love the good, true, and beautiful. In fact, growing up my life was consistently rebellious toward these things. Yet, this was not because I was simply rebelling against what I knew to be good, true, and beautiful. In fact, I was quite ignorant of these ideas. Mainly, It was that I lacked a desire to see the goodness, and beauty in the things that purported to be true. Christianity claims to be the truth. Yet, many believe it to be a mere religion full of no-fun rules.

Yet quite the contrary. Jesus gives a message of life to all who will believe. And In Him lies the profoundest of all mysteries. When we see God face to face and see Him as He truly is how could we want to pursue anything else?

This summer our Middle School group at my church is going through a video series called “The Blazing Center” by John Piper. Piper here is speaking on his infamous topics that he describes in detail in his books “The Pleasures of God” and “Desiring God.”

To be clear, I have read most of the former book, and much of the latter. Recently, I have reviewed important chunks of “Desiring God” to collect my thoughts on the subject of Christian Hedonism. Before I express my thoughts on this subject I do want to say that I appreciate deeply Piper’s passion for pursuing a life that is dedicated to worshiping Christ and His Kingdom. Piper is a man of deep faith, and profound integrity, and I hope one day I can live a life of faithfulness that he has.

In the Blazing Center video Piper gives a Webster dictionary definition of the term “Hedonism” as “a life in the pursuit of pleasure”. A couple things can be said about this.

First, my initial understanding of hedonism is that it is a inherently a selfish act. It is completely and utterly contrary to the virtues of temperance and prudence. It is entirely about pursuing what is most pleasurable in the moment without regard for those joys in life that come only from waiting and enduring through trials of life.

Secondly, the focus of hedonism seems not to be to find pleasure because this leads to a higher good of happiness, but rather you are pursuing the pleasure for the sake of pleasure. The pleasure is the end. It is not the means to something better. It is the very reason you do anything.

Those who participate in this form of hedonism mostly likely have the mistaken notion that pleasure is happiness. Therefore, to revel in a binge of physical pleasures whether it be sex, drinking, eating, etc is to reach the highest level of human ecstasy. And the more the merrier.

Now the question comes to this: How can a Christian be a Hedonist? Piper believes we can be a Christian Hedonist if we have a life that is in pursuit of pleasure in God. That is, he is redefining where it is we are to find pleasure. No longer are our pleasures founded in the sinful enjoyments of worldly things, but rather our pleasure comes to be founded in that which it can only be founded, namely, God Himself.

There are a few difficulties I find with the idea of Christian Hedonism. First is the notion that it seems to be very misleading. The types of pleasures the Christian life brings are often categorically different than those types of pleasures that worldly hedonism brings. For example, what does happiness, delight, joy, etc. look like in Job’s life when he has lost everything? Can this really be compared to having pleasure in God in such a way as to be called a “hedonist” albeit in a redefined Christian sense? Furthermore, how is this pleasure in God evidenced in Jesus’ life when He is hanging on the cross? Can we really say that he is “delighting” in the Lord? And, if not, is this failing to glorify God, as it seems Piper implicitly suggests? Piper seems to assert at times that if we are not “delighting” or having “joy” in the Lord then we are failing to glorify God. He terms this idea “Disinterested benevolence.”

My assertion is this: There are times in our life where we have no feelings in the moment of happiness, delight, or joy in following God. But, is this wrong? I say it is only wrong if these lack of feelings are matched with an attitude of distrust towards God’s promises, and consequently result in our rejecting God’s ways so that we can pursue happiness elsewhere. The point is this: The mere lack of joyful feelings, etc. is not grounds for saying that we are failing to glorify God if our actions are still guided by obedience because we trust that God’s promises are ultimately good and worthy of pursuit. This is exactly the attitude Jesus’ had in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus felt pain and anguish. He felt nothing of delight, gladness, or any other pleasure yet went to the cross because he trusted in the goodness of God’s promises. He had a trust that His “joy was set before him.” And, I assert (indeed, how could I not?), that Jesus is glorifying God through his act of obedience in the absence of joyous feelings just as much as he does in his, say, high priestly prayer.

Furthermore, I assert that Jesus does not go to the cross because ultimately his happiness awaits him. He does this because He has complete trust in the Father and He seeks to magnify Him in His life. Now, Piper would undoubtedly say that these two pursuits are not mutually exclusive, or in contradiction. Indeed, in the videos He says that growing up he was always told that he could either glorify God, or pursue his own happiness. I, too, agree that these things are not in contradiction. Yet, one follows logically from the other. In this sense, I whole heartedly agree with this philosopher (who writes to Piper after hearing a sermon on Christian Hedonism) and who Piper denounces as being (unintentionally) dishonoring to God:

Is not the contention of morality that we should do the good because it is the good?…We should do the good and perform virtuously, I suggest, because it is good and virtuous; that God will bless it and cause us to be happy is a consequence of it, but not the motive for doing it.”

I believe Piper makes the mistake, not of placing two contradictory things together, but of making a secondary thing equal to a first thing. A starving man has the motive of seeking to find food for nourishment (a first thing); whether or not the food has a “tastyness” is of secondary importance. One should not tell him that both are equally important. Piper has stressed that our pursuit of happiness is not against our pursuit of glorifying God because our happiness is found in glorifying God. Yet, this does not mean that we should make it our goal and emphasis to pursue happiness! It should be our goal to Glorify God! And, it will then logically follow that we are happy. It comes as a consequence of pursuing something other than our own happiness. I would rephrase Piper’s understanding as, “our desire to attain happiness in life is not against our glorifying God only it is something that must be renounced in order to truly receive.” I must put death my understanding of happiness, and pursue glorify God!

By forgetting ourself and our wants we attain life abundantly. By forgetting our happiness, we ironically find sweet and full happiness. Yet, -lest anyone be confused- we should not now pursue glorifying God because we know that it logically follows that we will be happy. We pursue glorifying God because He is Himself complete and utterly worthy of glorifying. We should praise that which is good and noble, and do that which is good and noble precisely because they are good and noble! And, enjoyment, pleasure comes through as a consequence.

It was once said that the “mediocre teacher tells, the good teacher explains, the superior teacher demonstrates, and the great teacher inspires.”

Often simple riddles, such as the above, can be so completely and utterly simplistic and conventional in it’s assertion that it fails to in any meaningful way expound the depth and complexity of a particular thing. The emotional warmth of a phrase becomes the reason one excepts it, rather than the guiding light of the intellect seeking to connect the assertion with reality. Yet, having this in mind, the above phrase strikes me as quite true even if simple in form. This is for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems clear that the nature of the best teachers are those who can help their students not only learn facts about a particular thing, but they are also one’s who can incite within their students an excitement about the particular thing being learned. The teacher guides them into seeing the broader meaning of an event, idea, or concept. As a result, the student can see the “bigger picture” and consequently the implications of things. Through the enlightenment that they have been led into they begin to become inspired by the understanding they have gained.

Logically following is that the student will gain a desire of learning in general. The pursuit of truth has become more attractive to him. Pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge has become a love of his, though not because he seeks to selfishly hoard this, but because he realizes that in learning he has a become a wiser and better person.

This inspiration produced within the student becomes the second reason I agree with the above quote. For the great teacher not only will inspire the student to love the particular subject they are presently learning, they will also push the student toward a love of learning in general. The teacher is an aid to the student in their pursuit of truth, and seeks where ever they can to bring a desire to their heart to seek out and pursue truth in all aspects of life.

He plays the role similar to the faithful Dad who seeks to help his child learn how to ride a bike. The Dad wants to see the child in the end ride without training wheels. Yet, he understands the value of the training wheels as a necessary stage in learning. Yet, the child will never learn how to ride the bike without training wheels if the Dad is only telling, and demonstrating the way it should be done. The child must learn for himself. The Dad must give just enough confidence within his son to get him to go up to the next stage. Undoubtedly, there are bumps and bruises along the way. But, paradoxically, to fall off the bike is the beginning of being able to ride the bike.

In the same way, the teacher must patiently guide and inspire within the student the desire to have truth, while being sure to simultaneously release the student to go on their own journey toward this end that will be filled with many ups and downs.

Yet, without the ‘downs’ along this journey it seems that the ‘ups’ would not be able to stand.

In her classic speech on the “Lost Tools of Learning” Dorothy Sayers prophetically remarks, “Is not the great defect of our education today…that although we often succeed in teaching our pupils “subjects,” we fail lamentably on the whole in teaching them how to think: they learn everything, except the art of learning.”

Sayers continues, “It is as though we had taught a child, mechanically and by rule of thumb, to play “The Harmonious Blacksmith” upon the piano, but had never taught him the scale or how to read music; so that, having memorized “The Harmonious Blacksmith,” he still had not the faintest notion how to proceed from that to tackle “The Last Rose of Summer.“

It’s important to keep in mind these quote were said over fifty years ago in Britain where education is far away more difficult than in the United States. In the here and now, us Americans have been further mired into the abyss of defective education. The solution to the problem is not easy. As Christians how are we to educate children?

While understanding that is is highly doubtful the educational model she proposes will be instituted, Sayers however continues to advocate a resurrection of the old medieval model.

Within this model of education there are two separate parts: the Trivium and the Quadrivium.

The Trivium was divided into three parts: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. As Sayers points out, these “subjects” are not really “subjects” in the way we usually think. In fact, these “subjects” are “only methods of dealing with subjects.” Sayers succinctly explains the purpose behind the Trivium as well as each portion therein saying,

“The whole of the Trivium was, in fact, intended to teach the pupil the proper use of the tools of learning, before he began to apply them to “subjects” at all.

“First, he learned a language; not just how to order a meal in a foreign language, but the structure of a language, and hence of language itself–what it was, how it was put together, and how it worked.”

Within the dialectic the student, “learned how to use language; how to define his terms and make accurate statements; how to construct an argument and how to detect fallacies in argument. Dialectic, that is to say, embraced Logic and Disputation.”

“Thirdly, he learned to express himself in language– how to say what he had to say elegantly and persuasively.”

It might be asked, why is this type of education so important for Christians?

Sayers offers a cogent remark for what it means if we fail to properly educate children,

“For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects.”

Indeed, in order to properly prepare children for the battle in this world of combating falsehood a proper education is a necessity. Because if Christians are not the one’s leading the way, then who is?

In a classic Doonesbury cartoon, a rumpled professor holds forth from a lectern while his students dutifully scribble away in their notepads: ” . . . and in my view, Jefferson’s defense of these basic rights lacked conviction. Okay, any discussion of what I’ve covered so far?” “Of course not,” he thinks to himself. “You’re too busy getting it all down.”

“Let me just add,” he goes on, “that personally I believe the Bill of Rights to be a silly, inconsequential recapitulation of truths already found in the Constitution. Any comment?”

The students continue to take notes.

“No, scratch that!” he says, raising his voice and waving his hands. “The Constitution itself should never have been ratified! It’s a dangerous document! All power should rest with the executive! What do you think of that?”

They keep writing, their faces blank.

“JEFFERSON WAS THE ANTICHRIST!” the professor screams. “DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM! BLACK IS WHITE! NIGHT IS DAY!”

The students are still taking notes as the professor collapses on the podium, announcing, “Teaching is dead.”

“Boy, this course is really getting interesting,” one student says.

“You said it,” another responds. “I didn’t know half this stuff.”

Although hyperbolic in form, this cartoon still accurately portrays the reality of education in our society. Students have become programs by which teachers are to imprint information on. And through failing to equip students with the proper mechanisms of learning, students have been left high and dry in their educational life.

How did we get here? Of course, living in the ever so politically correct United States, educational reformers and politicians will never state the status of education in such negative terms, as I did above. Nowadays, the model of education is disguised under positive spin such as the “no child left behind program.” And we arrived at the current system through much of the same type of misleading rhetoric.

Back in the early 20th century, philosopher, psychologist and eventual education reformer, John Dewey, along with Charles Pierce and William James, advocated a philosophical theory known as Pragmatism. However, Dewey did not identify himself as a pragmatist per se, but instead referred to his philosophy as “instrumentalism”. Instrumentalism is a type of pragmatism. Very roughly, ‘instrumentalism’ is the idea that “concepts and theories are merely useful instruments whose worth is measured not by whether the concepts and theories are true or false (or correctly depict reality), but by how effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena.”

Furthermore, Dewey felt that only science could reliably further human good, specifically denying that religion or metaphysics could form a valid foundation for morality and social values.

As popularity over Dewey’s theories began to rise and American economic pragmatism became mainstream, education began to be viewed as a means to an end. Explicitly education was said to be of great value for the human person, yet the system set in place said something contradictory. The ideas of goodness, truth, and beauty in education increasingly diminished as utilitarian modes of learning actualized. In the outworking of education, students became treated not as creatures made in God’s Image, as our nations forefathers believed, but, as said above, programs to be inputed with useful information so that students could then ‘learn by doing.’

For Christians, the road back to reclaiming the role of goodness, truth, and beauty in education is an arduous task. Where should one begin? Often, the simple answer employed by many is too enroll their children into a Christian school. Yet, while going to a Christian school may be more beneficial, in many ways the educational system there is merely a replication of the public schools system only with a Christian veneer. Even there, standardized testing is of maximal importance, students are more often than not impeded in learning by outcome-based assignments, and the pressure to justify the existence of these schools mount as parents often become dissatisfied when their students are seem to falling behind those students in public schools.

If Christian schools are not the answer, then ‘Where do we go from here?’

Part 2 will seek to describe an educational model that will seek to recover the art of learning.

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, had a debate with Orson Scott Card, an author and commited Latter-day Saint, on whether Mormon’s are Christians.

Dr. Mohler’s basic objection is that mormon’s deny the historic orthodox understanding of Christianity. He says, “Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence.” Earlier, Dr. Mohler contended that the central argument for Mormonism is itself a denial of orthodox Christianity. The central argument: that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.

On the other hand, Orson S. Card argues that it is not up Dr. Mohler to decide how we define Christianity. In a rather fair objection to Dr. Mohler’s position, Orson says,

“The only major point on which I could criticize Dr. Mohler’s essay is that he begged the question in the first and second paragraph. “Christianity is rightly defined in terms of ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy,” he says. “Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christian.” In other words, he began the discussion by saying, “We win. Therefore we can define anyone who is not us as ‘the losers.’”

Although it was implicit within his argument it would have been wiser had Dr. Mohler said explicitly that the orthodox position of Christianity was derived from the Scriptures, and thus based upon revelation.

Orson’s makes the error of using a straw man argument by not analyzing Dr. Mohler’s position in a charitable way. It should be rather obvious that Dr. Mohler was assuming it was understood by the readers, especially a learned man like Orson, that the orthodox understanding of Christianity was derived and based on interpretation from Scirpture. Instead, Orson, in a rather hand waving objection, simply states that the orthodox formulation of Christianity (which is outlined in historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations) is derived not from revelation, but from “debate and political maneuvering.”

This is very unsatisfactory analysis of the development of doctrine not only because it is too simplistic and misleading, but it is downright false.

The establishment of these creeds came about as a result of others parting from the common understanding of the Christian faith. It became important to formulate what exactly Christians believed so as to protect the church from falsehoods. There was debate only insofar as others began to challenge the common beliefs of the church. Often that which is implicity believed in the church is distinct from that which is confessed and taught in the church not because the content of the former is of different fundamental form than the latter, but because that which is confessed and taught is more precisely rendered. Or, in other words, the simplisitc understanding of the faithful church-going yet naive old lady most likely will be less precise than that which is exposed and taught by the theologians of the day. This is due to the fact that folk-understanding is of a more simple and less technical form. And it can be said, that while heresies gave urgency to the formulation of that which was implicity believed it did not instigate a creation of the ideas themselves. It was not as if the creeds were made and Christians began to believe something other than the already had, it was that there beliefs were more clearly pronounced and succintly formed. The creeds, therefore, are important so as to help the common church goers understand what it is they believe at a more precise level so they won’t fall into the subtle falsehoods of the time.

The real issue that must be debated in on whether the historic creeds are interpreted correctly. That is, we must ask the question: Do these creeds affirm the things Scripture testifies and proclaims?

Nevertheless, the debate is definitely an interesting read. Here is the link:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/06/who-gets-to-define-christian.html