P A R T I I I - CIRCLEcircle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae201073013823.pdf · 2015. 9. 27. ·...

Implicationsof Philosophy for

Adventist Education

R E D E M P T I V E

E D U C A T I O N

P A R T I I I

B Y G E O R G E R . K N I G H T

A P P R O V E D F O R 0 . 5 C O N T I N U I N G E D U C A T I O N U N I T S *

( C O N T I N U E D )

38 The Journal of Adventist Education • October/November 2010 http:// jae.adventist.org

39http:// jae.adventist.org The Journal of Adventist Education • October/November 2010

he term curriculum comes from the Latinword currere, which means to run a race.”In a general sense it represents “all thecourses and experiences at an institution.”1

One author defines it as “a road map inbroad strokes that points individuals in thedirection of Christian maturing.”2

But, we need to ask, what should be includedin the map? And on what basis should decisionsbe made? Those questions bring us to the issueof what knowledge is of most worth.

What Knowledge Is of Most Worth?One of the most enlightening and coherent es-

says ever published on the relationship of philo-sophic beliefs to the content of the curriculumwas developed by Herbert Spencer (a leading so-cial Darwinist) in 1854. “What Knowledge Is ofMost Worth?” was both the title and the centralquestion of the essay. To Spencer, this was the“question of questions” in the realm of educa-tion. “Before there can be a rational curriculum,”he argued, “we must settle which things it mostconcerns us to know; . . . we must determine therelative value of knowledges.”3

Spencer, in seeking to answer his question,

classified human activity in a hierarchical orderbased on importance. He chose the followingstratification, in terms of descending conse-quence: (1) those activities relating directly toself-preservation, (2) those activities that indi-rectly minister to self-preservation, (3) thoseactivities having to do with the rearing of off-spring, (4) those activities pertaining to politi-cal and social relations, (5) those activities thatrelate to the leisure part of life and are devotedto the tastes and appetites.4

His essay then proceeded to analyze humanaffairs from a naturalistic-evolutionary perspec-tive, and eventually provided an unequivocalreply to his leading question: “What knowledgeis of most worth?—the uniform reply is—Sci-ence. This is the verdict on all the counts.”Spencer’s explanation of his answer related Sci-ence (broadly conceived to include the socialand practical sciences, as well as the physicaland life sciences) to his five-point hierarchy oflife’s most important activities. His answer wasbuilt upon the principle that whichever activitiesoccupy the peripheral aspects of life should alsooccupy marginal places in the curriculum, whilethose activities that are most important in life

T“

H O W I T W O R K S :

After you have studied the content presented here, send for the test, using the form on page 60. Upon successful completionof the test, you will receive a report on the Continuing Education Units you’ve earned, and the certification registrar of yourunion conference office of education will be notified (North American Division only).

*Approved by the North American Division Office of Education. The tests for Parts I, II, and III must be successfully completedto meet alternative teaching certification requirements as outlined in Section 5.1 of the K-12 Educators Certification Manual.

Part I in this sequence discussed the major philosophic categories related to reality,truth, and value and examined each of those areas from an Adventist perspective. Build-ing upon that philosophic foundation, Part II began to explore its implications for educa-tional practice, particularly in terms of the nature of the student, the aims of Adventisteducation, and the ministerial role of the teacher. Part III discusses a Christian approachto curriculum, moves on to the implications of a Christian philosophy for teachingmethodology and the social function of Adventist education, and closes with a perspec-tive on the importance of Adventist educators being faithful to the philosophy that un-dergirds their schools.A fuller discussion of many of the topics covered in this article may be found in the

author’s Philosophy and Education: An Introduction in Christian Perspective, 4th ed.(Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2006) and Myths in Adventism: AnInterpretive Study of Ellen White, Education, and Related Issues (Hagerstown, Md.: Re-view and Herald Publ. Assn., 1985, 2010).

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Why should there

be a blind spot

in hiring qualified

teachers—

individuals who

work with the most

valuable entities

on earth, the future

generation.

C O N T I N U I N G E D U C A T I O N — P A R T I I I


jects of the curriculum in such a way that theymake sense, but to discover such a pattern. Welive in a world that has so fragmented knowl-edge that it is difficult to see how our variousrealms of expertise relate to the whole. It is inthis context that C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures”—with its discussion of the great gulf between thehumanities and the sciences—takes on partic-ular significance and meaning.8

Our world is one in which subject-areascholars have too often lost the ability to com-municate with one another because they fail tosee the significance of their subject matter inrelation to the ”big picture.” To complicate mat-ters, we find existentialists and postmodernistsdenying external meaning, and analytic phi - losophers suggesting that since we can’t dis-cover meaning, we should focus on definingour words and refining our syntax.

The search for meaning in the total educa-tional experience has been a major quest formore than a century. Some have defined the in-tegrating center as the unity of the classics, whileothers have viewed it in terms of the needs of so-ciety, vocationalism, or science. None of thoseapproaches, however, has been broad enough,and their claims have usually been divisiverather than unifying. We seem to live in a schiz-ophrenic world in which many claim that thereis no external meaning, while others base theirscientific research on postulates that point to anoverall meaning. Modern secular people havethrown out Christianity as a unifying force andhave tended to concentrate on the details of theirknowledge rather than on the whole. As a result,intellectual fragmentation continues to be a largeproblem as human beings seek to determinewhat knowledge is of most worth.

For Adventist educators, the problem is quitedifferent. They know what knowledge is of mostworth, because they understand humanity’sgreatest needs. They know that the Bible is a cos-mic revelation that transcends the limited realmof humanity, and that it not only reveals thehuman condition but also the remedy for thatcondition. They further realize that all subjectmatter becomes meaningful when seen in thelight of the Bible and its Great Controversy strug-gle between good and evil. The problem for Ad-ventist educators has not been to find the patternof knowledge in relation to its center, but ratherto apply what they know.

All too often the curriculum of Christianschools, including Adventist institutions, hasbeen “a patchwork of naturalistic ideas mixedwith Biblical truth.” That has led, Frank Gae-belein claims, to a form of “scholastic schizo-phrenia in which a highly orthodox theology

should be given the most important place in thecourse of studies.5

Christians will of necessity reject Spencer’sconclusions, which are built upon a naturalisticmetaphysics and epistemology, but they mustnot miss the larger issue underlying his argu-ment. It is crucial that Adventists understandthe rationale for the curriculum in their institu-tions of learning. Mark Van Doren noted that“the college is meaningless without a curricu-lum, but it is more so when it has one that ismeaningless.”6

The Adventist educator must, with Spencer,settle the issue of “which things it most con-cerns us to know.” The answer to that ques-tion, as Spencer noted, leads directly to an un-derstanding of the relative values of variouskinds of knowledge in the curriculum. Ad -ventist educators can study Spencer’s essay andthe methodology included therein and gainsubstantial insights into the important task ofcurriculum development in the context of theirdistinctive worldview.

Authentic and viable curricula must be de-veloped out of, and must be consistent with, aschool’s metaphysical, epistemological, and ax-iological bases. It is therefore a foundationaltruth that different philosophic approaches willemphasize different curricula. One implicationof that fact is that the curriculum of Adventistschools will not be a readjustment or an adap-tation of the secular curriculum of the larger so-ciety. Biblical Christianity is unique. Therefore,the curricular stance of Adventist educationwill be unique.

Another major issue in curriculum develop-ment is to discover the pattern that holds the cur-riculum together. Alfred North Whiteheadclaimed that curricular programs generally sufferfrom the lack of an integrating principle. “Insteadof this single unity, we offer children—Algebra,from which nothing follows; Geometry, fromwhich nothing follows; Science, from whichnothing follows; History, from which nothing fol-lows; a Couple of Languages, never mastered;and lastly, most dreary of all, Literature, repre-sented by plays of Shakespeare, with philologicalnotes and short analyses of plot and character tobe in substance committed to memory. Can sucha list be said to represent Life, as it is known inthe midst of the living of it? The best that can besaid of it is that it is a rapid table of contentswhich a deity might run over in his mind whilehe was thinking of creating a world, and has notyet determined how to put it together.”7

However, the crux of the problem has notbeen ignorance of the need for some overallpattern in which to fit together the various sub-

Modern secular

people have thrown

out Christianity

as a unifying force

and have tended to

concentrate on

the details of their

knowledge

rather than on the

whole.



can develop—an educational context in whichyoung people can be taught to think “Chris-tianly” about every aspect of reality.12

The Strategic Role of the Bible inthe Curriculum

A second postulate follows that of the unityof all truth: The Bible is the foundational andcontextual document for all curricular items inthe Christian school. This postulate is a naturaloutcome of a bibliocentric, revelational episte-mology. Just as special revelation forms the basisof epistemological authority, so also it must bethe foundation of the curriculum. Our discussionof epistemology noted that the Bible is not an ex-haustive source of truth. Much truth exists out-side of the Bible, but it is important to note thatno truth exists outside the metaphysical frame-work of the Bible. “The teaching authority ofScripture,” Arthur Holmes asserts, “commits thebeliever at certain focal points and so providesan interpretive framework, an overall glimpse ofhow everything relates to God.”13

The concept of an interpretive frameworkneeds constant emphasis in Adventist education.The Bible is not the whole of knowledge, but itdoes provide a frame of reference within whichto study and interpret all topics. Whether thatframework is the view of evolutionary natural-ism, the Greek and Roman classics, the biblicalworldview, or some other perspective makes agreat deal of difference. An Adventist school isChristian only when it teaches all subjects fromthe perspective of God’s Word.

Elton Trueblood noted that “the importantquestion is not, Do you offer a course in religion?Such a course might be offered by any institu-tion. The relevant question is, Does your reli-gious profession make a difference? . . . A meredepartment of religion may be relatively insignif-icant. The teaching of the Bible is good, but it isonly a beginning. What is far more important isthe penetration of the central Christian convic-tions into the teaching” of every subject.14

Frank Gaebelein was making the same pointwhen he wrote that there exists “a vast differ-ence between education in which devotionalexercises and the study of Scripture have aplace, and education in which the Christianityof the Bible is the matrix of the whole programor, to change the figure, the bed in which theriver of teaching and learning flows.”15

An educational system that maintains a splitbetween the areas it defines as secular or reli-gious can justify tacking on religious elementsto a basically secular curriculum. It may evengo so far as to treat the Bible as the “firstamong equals” in terms of importance. But the

coexists uneasily with a teaching of non-reli-gious subjects that differs little from that in sec-ular institutions.”9 The challenge confrontingthe curriculum developer in an Adventistschool is to move beyond a curricular view fo-cused on the bits and pieces, and to find a wayto clearly and purposefully integrate the detailsof knowledge into the biblical framework. Thattask brings us to the unity of truth.

The Unity of TruthA basic postulate underlying the Christian

curriculum is that “all truth is God’s truth.”10

From the biblical viewpoint, God is the Creatorof everything. Therefore, truth in all fields stemsfrom Him. Failing to see this point clearly has ledmany to construct a false dichotomy between thesecular and the religious. That dichotomy im-plies that the religious has to do with God, whilethe secular is divorced from Him. From thatpoint of view, the study of science, history, andmathematics is seen as basically secular, whilethe study of religion, church history, and ethicsis viewed as religious.

That is not the biblical perspective. In theScriptures, God is seen as the Creator of the ob-jects and patterns of science and math, as wellas the Director of historical events. In essence,there are no “secular” aspects of the curricu-lum. John Henry Newman pointed to that truthwhen he wrote that “it is easy enough” on thelevel of thought “to divide Knowledge intohuman and divine, secular and religious, andto lay down that we will address ourselves tothe one without interfering with the other; butit is impossible in fact.”11

All truth in the Christian curriculum,whether it deals with nature, humanity, society,or the arts, must be seen in proper relationshipto Jesus Christ as Creator and Redeemer. It istrue that some forms of truth are not addressedin the Scriptures. For example, nuclear physicsis not explained in the Bible. That, however,does not mean that nuclear physics is not con-nected with God’s natural laws or that it doesnot have moral and ethical implications as itsapplications affect the lives of people. Christwas the Creator of all things—not just thosethings people have chosen to call religious(John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16).

All truth, if it be truth indeed, is God’s truth,no matter where it is found. As a result, the cur-riculum of the Christian school must be seen asa unified whole, rather than as a fragmented andrather loosely connected assortment of topics.Once that viewpoint is recognized, educationwill have taken a major step forward in creatingan atmosphere in which the “Christian mind”


school whose constituency and teachers em-brace the idea that “all truth is God’s truth” willfind itself bound by that belief to develop a cur-ricular model in which the biblical worldviewpermeates every aspect of the curriculum.

According to Ellen White, “the science of re-demption is the science of all sciences,” and theBible is “the Book of books.”16 Only an under-standing of that “science” and that “Book”makes everything else meaningful in the fullestsense. Viewed in the light of “the grand centralthought” of the Bible, Ellen White points out,“every topic has a new significance.”17 Every stu -dent, she noted in another connection, shouldgain a knowledge of the Bible’s “grand centraltheme, of God’s original purpose for the world,of the rise of the great controversy, and of thework of redemption. He should understand thenature of the two principles that are contendingfor supremacy, and should learn to trace theirworking through the records of history and proph -ecy, to the great consummation. He should seehow this controversy enters into every phase ofhuman experience; how in every act of life hehimself reveals the one or the other of the twoantagonistic motives; and how, whether he willor not, he is even now deciding upon which sideof the controversy he will be found.”18

The conflict between good and evil has leftno area of existence untouched. On the nega-tive side, we see the controversy in the deteri-oration of the world of nature, in war and suf-fering in the realm of history and the socialsciences, and in humanity’s concern with lost-ness in the humanities. On the positive side, wediscover the wonder of a natural order thatseems to be purposefully organized, in human-ity’s ability to relate to and care for its fellowsin social life, and in its deep visions and desiresfor wholeness and meaningfulness. “Why,”every individual is forced to ask, “is there evilin a world that seems so good? Why is theredeath and sorrow in an existence that is so del-icately engineered for life?”

The questions go on and on, but without su-pernatural help, earthbound humans are help-less as they seek to discover ultimate answers.They can discover bits and pieces of “truth”and build theories concerning their meaning,but only in God’s cosmic breakthrough to hu-manity in its smallness and lostness is that ul-timate meaning provided.

God’s special revelation contains the answersto humankind’s “big questions.” It is that reve-lation, therefore, that must provide both thefoundation and the context for every humanstudy. Each topic within the curriculum, and

even human life itself, takes on new meaning inthe light of God’s Word. It is imperative, there-fore, that Adventist schools teach every subjectfrom the biblical perspective.

Gaebelein, in his classic treatment of theissue, has suggested that what we need is the“integration” of every aspect of the school pro-gram with the biblical worldview. Integration“means ‘the bringing together of parts into thewhole.’”19 “The call, then,” he writes, “is for awholly Christian worldview on the part of oureducation. We must recognize, for example,that we need teachers who see their subjects,whether scientific, historical, mathematical, lit-erary, or artistic, as included within the patternof God’s truth.”20 This is the rightful place ofreligion in education, claimed Henry P. VanDusen in his Rockwell Lectures, not becausethe churches say so or because it is dictated bytradition, but “because of the nature of Real-ity.”21 After all, God is the being whose exis-tence brings unity and meaning to the universe,and it is His revelation that provides unity andmeaning to the curriculum.

Unfortunately, in the most common curricu-lum design, Bible or religion is just one topicamong many, as illustrated in Figure 122 onpage 43. In that model, every topic is studiedin the context of its own logic, and each is re-garded as basically independent of the others.History or literature teachers are not concernedwith religion, and religion teachers do not in-volve themselves with history or literature,since all teach their own specialty. Each subjecthas its own well-defined territory and tradi-tional approach. This model rarely delves intothe relationship between fields of study, letalone their “ultimate meaning.”

In an attempt to correct the above problem,some enthusiastic reformers have gone to theother extreme and developed a model that is il-lustrated in Figure 2.23 This model seeks tomake the Bible and religion into the whole cur-riculum, and, as a result, also misses the mark,since the Bible never claims to be an exhaustivesource of truth. It sets the framework for thestudy of history and science and touches uponthose topics, but it is not a “textbook” for allareas that students need to understand. On theother hand, it is a “textbook” in the science ofsalvation and a source of inspired informationconcerning both the orderliness and the abnor-mality of our present world, even though itnever claims to be a sufficient authority in allareas of possible truth.

A third organizational scheme could be la-beled the foundational and contextual model



schools must approach each subject in the lightof the biblical perspective in order to under-stand its fullest meaning.

The broken lines in Figure 3 signify the lackof rigid divisions between the various subjects,and the absence of any false dichotomy betweenthe sacred and the secular. The two-headed ar-rows indicate not only that the Bible helps us un-derstand every topic in the curriculum, but alsothat the study of history, science, and so on alsosheds light on the meaning of Scripture. God hasrevealed Himself through the Bible in a specialrevelation, and through His created world in ageneral revelation. We can grasp the significanceof the latter only in the light of the former, butboth shed light on each other since all truth hasits origin in God. Every topic in the curriculumhas an impact upon every other, and all achievemaximum meaning when integrated within thebiblical context.

Christianity and the Radical Reorientationof the Curriculum

One of the challenges that educators mustface in developing a biblically oriented curricu-lum in the 21st century is the diverse world-views that permeate contemporary society, in-cluding that of postmodernism, which claimsthat there is no such thing as a genuine world-view anchored in reality—that all worldviewsor grand narratives are human constructions.But that claim is itself a worldview with defi-nite metaphysical and epistemological presup-positions.26

That thought raises the issue of the generallack of self-consciousness evidenced by mostpeople. Harry Lee Poe reflects upon that topicwhen he writes that “every discipline of theacademy makes enormous assumptions andgoes about its business with untested and un-challenged presuppositions. We are used tothis. Assumptions and presuppositions havebecome so much a part of the fabric of life thatwe do not notice the threads. These threadsmake up the worldview of the culture in whichwe live. They are the things ‘everybody knows’and that, therefore, go untested. They are sodeeply ingrained in us that we are rarely evenaware of them.”27 In short, worldviews formany people are subliminal—a part of thelarger culture that is accepted without chal-lenge.

On the other hand, Poe notes that “in themarketplace of ideas, the fundamental assump-tions . . . to which people cling are the verythings that Christ challenges.”28 Clearly, thebiblical worldview and the predominant men-

(see Figure 324 below). It implies that the Bible(and its worldview) provides a foundation anda context for all human knowledge, and that itsoverall meaning infuses every area of the cur-riculum and adds significance to each topic.This corresponds with what Richard Edlin help-fully refers to as the “permeative function of theBible.” “The Bible,” he notes, “is not frostingon an otherwise unaltered humanist cake. Itneeds to be the leaven in the educational loaf,shaping the entire curriculum from its base upas it permeates through the whole school pro-gram.”25 Figure 3 sets forth an integrationmodel, indicating that educators in Adventist

Figure 1. Curriculum Model: Self-Contained Subject Matter Areas

Figure 2. Curriculum Model: The Bible as the Whole

Figure 3. Curriculum Model: The Bible as Foundational and Contextual

B I B L I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

B I B L I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

Liter

atur

e

Hist

ory

Mat

hem

atic

s

Scie

nce

Et C

eter

a

Liter

atur

e

Hist

ory

Mat

hem

atic

s

Bible and Religion

Scie

nce

Et C

eter

a

Relig

ion


The impact of

literary study is all

the more powerful

because it is

delivered in a pack-

age with which

humans emotionally

identify.


tality of the larger culture are often at odds, andthere are different religious and even differentChristian worldviews. Making people aware ofthe contrasts results in what sociologist PeterBerger refers to as “collisions of conscious-ness”29 and what philosopher David Naugle la-bels “worldview warfare.”30

From that perspective, by its very nature, thebiblically based curriculum challenges othermethods of curricula organization and suggestsa radical reorientation of the subject matter inAdventist schools. The essential point that theAdventist educator must grasp is that the teach-ing of any topic in an Adventist school must notbe a modification of the approach used in non-Christian schools. It is rather a radical reorien-tation of that topic within the philosophicalframework of Christianity.

A good place to begin examining the radicalreorientation of the curriculum is the field ofliterary study.31 The study of literature holds acrucial position in all school systems becauseliterature addresses and seeks to answer peo-ple’s most important questions; reveals human-ity’s basic desires, wishes, and frustrations; anddevelops insight into human experience. Be-yond raising aesthetic sensitivity, the study ofliterature leads to inductive insights in suchareas as psychology, philosophy, religion, his-tory, and sociology; and it provides informationabout such topics as human nature, sin, andthe meaning and purpose of human existence.

The impact of literary study is all the morepowerful because it is delivered in a packagewith which humans emotionally identify. Thatis, it reaches people at the affective and cogni-tive levels simultaneously. In the fullest senseof the words, literary content is philosophicaland religious because it deals with philosophi-cal and religious issues, problems, and an-swers. Literary study, therefore, holds a centralposition in curricular structures and providesone of the most powerful educational tools forthe teaching of religious values.

Secularist John Steinbeck caught the signif-icance of the central core of great literature inhis classic East of Eden when he wrote that “Ibelieve that there is one story in the world, andonly one. . . . Humans are caught—in theirlives, in their thoughts, in their hungers andambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and intheir kindness and generosity too—in a net ofgood and evil. . . . There is no other story.”32

While there may be no other story, there arecertainly multiple interpretations of the impli-cations of that story. For Steinbeck, from hisearthbound perspective, there is no hope. Theend is always disastrous despite hopeful signs

along the way. By way of contrast, the Biblefeatures hope in spite of serious problems. Italso explores the “only story,” but with revela-tory insight into the meaning of a world thatforms the battleground for a cosmic clash be-tween the forces of good and evil.

The responsibility of the literature teacher inthe Adventist school is to help students learnto read critically so that they can grasp themeaning of their assignments in terms of thegreat controversy between good and evil.33 Lit-erary study is not merely a relaxing excursioninto the realm of art. T. S. Eliot observed thatwhat we read affects “the whole of what weare. . . . Though we may read literature merelyfor pleasure, of ‘entertainment’ or of ‘aestheticenjoyment,’ this reading never affects simply asort of special sense: it affects our moral andreligious existence.”34 There is no such thing asartistic neutrality. The function of literary studyin an Adventist school is not just to help stu-dents become “learned” in the great writers ofthe past and present; it must also help them toview the issues at stake in the controversy be-tween good and evil with more clarity and sen-sitivity.

The Bible in this context provides an inter-pretive framework that transcends human in-sights. “Every topic,” including literature, “hasa new significance,” Ellen White suggests,when viewed in the light of the “grand centraltheme” of the Scriptures.35 The Bible is quite arealistic book. Those literary extremes that ig-nore evil at one end of the spectrum or glorifyit at the other are neither true nor honest andcertainly allow no room for a viable concept ofjustice. The challenge for Christians is to ap-proach literary study in such a way that it leadsreaders to see the reality of humanity and itsworld as it actually is—filled with sin and suf-fering, but not beyond hope and the redeeminggrace of a caring God.

The interpretive function of literary instruc-tion has generally been approached in two dif-ferent ways (see Drawings A and B in Figure 436

on page 45). Drawing A represents a classroomapproach that emphasizes the literary qualitiesof the material and uses the Bible or ideas fromthe Bible from time to time as asides. The onlydifference between this approach and the wayliterature is taught in non-Christian institutions,is that biblical insights are added.

Drawing B depicts the study of literature inthe context of the biblical perspective and itsimplications for humanity’s universal and per-sonal dilemmas. It interprets literature from thedistinctive vantage point of Christianity, recog-nizing the abnormality of the present world and



God’s activity in that world. Using that ap-proach, the study of literature in a Christian in-stitution can be richer than in a secular school,since non-Christians are handicapped by theirlack of the all-important (in terms of insightand interpretation) biblical view of sin and sal-vation. That does not mean that literary ele-ments such as plot and style are unimportant,but rather that they are not, within the contextof Christianity, the most important aspects ofliterary study.

Note also that in Drawing B the arrows indi-cate a two-way transaction between the biblicalperspective and literary study. Not only doesthe biblical worldview help us interpret litera-ture, but literary insights also help us to betterunderstand religious experience within the con-text of religious truth.

Adventist teachers must help students movebeyond the story to the meaning of its insightsfor daily life. The function of literary study in aChristian institution, Virginia Grabill writes, isto help students learn how to “think” about theissues of life—their personal identity and pur-pose, the presence of good and evil, justice andforgiveness, the beautiful and the ugly, sexual-ity and spirituality, ambition and humility, joyand suffering, purity and guilt, and so on.37

C. S. Lewis made a similar point when hewrote that “one of the minor rewards of con-version is to be able at last to see the real pointof all the literature we were brought up to readwith the point left out.”38 The goal of literarystudy in a Christian school is not to transmit abody of knowledge, but to develop a skill—theability to think critically and to interpret literaryinsights from the perspective of the biblicalworldview.

We have spent a great deal of time examin-ing literary study in the reoriented Christiancurriculum. Similar observations could bemade about history and social studies. Historyin the Christian curriculum is viewed in thelight of the biblical message as God seeks towork out His purpose in human affairs. TheBible is seen as providing the interpretiveframework for events between the fall of Adamand the second coming of Jesus. The Bible isnot treated as a comprehensive history text-book, but as an account that focuses on the his-tory of salvation. There are, of course, points ofintersection between general history and theBible in terms of events, prophecy, and archae-ology. But the Christian teacher of history real-izes that the specific points of intersection arein the minority, and that the major function ofthe Bible in his or her discipline is to provide aperspective for understanding.

The same might be said of the life, physical,and social sciences, or physical education, oragriculture in the curriculum of an Adventistschool. The Bible provides the framework forunderstanding a troubled world, while the dis-ciplines bring forth the bits and pieces. TheBible provides the pattern that gives interpre-tative meaning to the otherwise meaninglessdetails uncovered by the scholar. The Bible thusbecomes the focal point of integration for all ofhuman knowledge.

That fact is especially important in the sci-ences, an area in whichthe past century has wit-nessed one of the mostsignificant “cultural wars”of all time. Unfortunately,unproven hypotheses re-lated to macroevolution39

have too often beengranted the status of“fact” and then been usedto provide the interpretiveframework for science inmost schools.

The basic problem: Thecosmologies of macr o -evolution and biblical cre-ationism are incompati-ble. The latter begins witha perfect creation, contin-ues on with humanity’sfall into sin, and thentransitions to God’s solu-tion for removing the ef-fects of the Fall. But themacroevolution scenariois diametrically opposedto the biblical model.From the perspective ofmacroevolution, all crea-tures originated as less-complex organisms andhave been improvingthrough the processes ofnatural selection. In that model there is no needfor redemption and restoration.

The biblical framework for interpreting nat-ural history is constructed from the Genesis ac-count, which states that God created the earthin six days, and that He created human beingsin His own image. The basic facts of the Gene-sis creation story do not allow for eithermacroevolution (in which God has no involve-ment) or theistic evolution (which limits Godto the role of mere initiator of the evolutionaryprocess). Adventist schools must be unapolo-getically creationist. The biblical metaphysic

Figure 4. The Contextual Role of the Biblical Perspective

A

B

L I T E R A T U R E

B I B L I C A LP E R S P E C T I V E

Bibleand

Religion

Literature



stands at the very foundation of why the Sev-enth-day Adventist Church chose to establishAdventism’s educational alternative.

The integration of human knowledge intothe biblical framework is important, but it mustbe done with care and wisdom. Frank Gae-belein, in discussing how to develop correla-tions between Christian concepts and the sub-ject matter of the various fields of study, pointsout some necessary cautions. A major pitfall,as he sees it, is the danger “of a false integra-tion through forced correlations that are nottruly indigenous to the subject in question.Such lugging in of stilted correlations, eventhough motivated by Christian zeal, is liable todo more harm than good through giving the im-pression that integration of specific subjectswith God’s truth is a put-up job.

“What may be needed is a more relaxed at-tack upon the problem and a clearer realizationof the limits under which we are working. Herea suggestion by Emil Brunner is useful. Speak-ing of the distortion brought into our thinkingthrough sin, he sees it at its greatest in suchareas as theology, philosophy, and literature,because these are nearest man’s relation to Godand have thus been most radically alteredthrough the fall. They therefore stand most inneed of correction, and in them correlationwith Christianity is at its highest. But as wemove from the humanities to the sciences andmathematics, the disturbance through sin di-minishes almost to the vanishing point. Thusthe Christian teacher of the more objective sub-jects, mathematics in particular, ought not toseek for the detailed and systematic correla-tions that his colleagues in psychology, litera-ture, or history might validly make.”40

Gaebelein does not mean that there are nopoints of contact between Christianity and top-ics such as mathematics, but rather that theyare fewer and less obvious.41 Christian teacherswill utilize those points while not seeking toforce integration in an unnatural manner.

However, the integration of mathematicsand the physical sciences with Christian beliefmay be even more important than the integra-tion of literature and the social sciences withChristianity because many students have im-bibed the idea that they are “objective,” neu-tral, and functional and have no philosophicalpresuppositions, biases about reality, or cosmo-logical implications. On the contrary, the studyof mathematics and the “hard” sciences is to-tally embedded in bias and assumption.

Mathematics, for example, like Christianity,is built upon unprovable postulates. Beyondthat, assumptions such as the orderliness of the

universe and the validity of empirical observa-tion are metaphysical and epistemological pre-suppositions that undergird science but arerejected by many modern and postmodern peo-ple in both Western and Eastern cultures. It isessential to make these assumptions evident inclass presentations because they are oftentaken as facts and are “invisible” to the averagestudent who has been raised in an age that hasplaced its uncritical faith in science and math-ematics rather than in the Creator of scientificand mathematical reality. This integration ismost natural at the elementary, secondary, andintroductory college levels, since courses atthese levels provide the intellectual context forsuch sophisticated courses as theoretical me-chanics and advanced calculus.

Christian math and science teachers willalso creatively utilize the natural points of in-tegration between their subject matter and re-ligion. Mathematics, for example, certainly hascontact points with the Christian faith when itdeals with such areas as infinity and the exis-tence of numbers in other parts of daily life,from music to crystallography and astronomy.The world of mathematical precision is God’sworld; thus, mathematics is not outside the pat-tern of God’s truth.42

Before moving away from the radical reori-entation of the curriculum, we need to empha-size that it is of the utmost importance for Ad-ventist educators and their constituents torealize that the biblical worldview must domi-nate the curriculum of our schools to ensure thatthey are Adventist in actuality rather thanmerely in name. Adventist educators must askthemselves this probing question: If I, as ateacher in an Adventist school, am teaching thesame material in the same way that it is pre-sented in a public institution, then what rightdo I have to take the hard-earned money of myconstituents? The answer is both obvious andfrightening. Adventist education that does notprovide a biblical understanding of the arts, sci-ences, humanities, and the world of work is notChristian. One major aim of Adventist educa-tion must be to help students think christianly.

The Balanced CurriculumBeyond the realm of specific subject matter

in the Adventist school is the larger issue of theintegration of the curricular program in such away that it provides for the balanced develop-ment of the various attributes of students asthey are being restored to their original positionas beings created in the image and likeness ofGod. In the section on the nature of the stu-dent, we noted that at the Fall humanity, to a



large extent, experienced a fracturing of thatimage in the spiritual, social, mental, and phys-ical realms. We also saw that education is basi-cally an agent of redemption and restoration asGod seeks to use human educators to restorefallen individuals to their original state.

The curriculum must, therefore, establish anintegrated balance that facilitates that restora-tion. It cannot focus merely on mental devel-opment or career preparation. It must developthe whole person—the physical, social, spiri-tual, and vocational as well as the mental needsof each student.

Unfortunately, traditional education focusedalmost exclusively on the mental. Greek ideal-ism set the stage for more than two millenniaof miseducation that ignored or denigrated bothphysical development and preparation for use-ful vocations.

By contrast, the Bible is neither anti-physicalnor anti-vocational. After all, God created aphysical earth He deemed “very good” (Genesis1:31),43 and He intends to resurrect human be-ings with physical bodies at the end of time (1Thessalonians 4:13-18; Philippians 3:21). Be-yond that, Jesus was educated to be a carpen-ter, and the wealthy Paul was trained as a tentmaker even though it appeared that he wouldnever need to work at the trade.

But those biblical principles were obscuredin the early centuries of the Christian Churchwhen its theology amalgamated with Greekthought. That resulted in some very non-bibli-cal educational theory and practice.

The 19th century experienced a wave of re-form, with calls for a return to balanced edu-cation. Ellen White spoke about that needed re-form. In fact, it was at the center of hereducational philosophy. We saw that in thevery first paragraph of Education, in which shenoted that “true education . . . is the harmo-nious development of the physical, the mental,and the spiritual powers.”44

To restore individuals to wholeness, Advent -ist education cannot neglect the balance be-tween the physical and the mental. The impor-tance of that balance is highlighted by the factthat it is the body that houses the brain, whichpeople must use in order to make responsiblespiritual decisions. Whatever affects one partof a person affects the total being. Individualsare wholistic units, and the curriculum of theAdventist school must meet all their needs toensure that they achieve wholeness and operateat peak efficiency. Ellen White was speakingabout the traditional imbalance in educationwhen she wrote that “in the eager effort to se-cure intellectual culture, physical as well as

moral training has been neglected. Many youthcome forth from institutions of learning withmorals debased, and physical powers enfee-bled; with no knowledge of practical life, andlittle strength to perform its duties.”45 The prac-tical aspects of life were important to EllenWhite’s sense of educational balance. Thus shecould write that “for their own physical healthand moral good, children should be taught towork, even if there is no necessity so far aswant is concerned.”46

Balance is equally important in the informalor extracurricular aspects of the school’s cur-riculum. This includes a multiplicity of organi-zations and activities, such as clubs, musicalgroups, athletics, work experiences, schoolpublications, and so on, which must all bebrought into harmony with the purpose of theinstitution and integrated with the Christianmessage, just as is the formal curriculum, toensure that the school does not give a dichoto-mous message to its students, constituency,and onlookers. The Adventist school has twomajor tasks in regard to the informal curricu-lum—the choice of activities and the creationof guidelines for the implementation of the ac-tivities selected. Both of those tasks must bebased on biblical values.

That thought brings us to the topic of valueseducation throughout the curriculum. ArthurHolmes made an important point when henoted that “education has to do with the trans-mission of values.”47 The issue of values is cen-tral to much of the conflict over educationtoday. What we find in most places, includingschools, is an ethical relativism that goesagainst the very core of the Bible’s teachings.When modern culture lost the concept of aneternal God it also lost the idea that there areuniversal values that apply across time, indi-viduals, and cultures. Ronald Nash was correctwhen he asserted that “America’s educationalcrisis is not exclusively a crisis of the mind,”but also a crisis of the “heart,” a values crisis.48

This crisis is evident not only in schools, butalso in the public media, which all too oftenpromotes values that are non-Christian or evenanti-Christian.

These are realities that the Adventist schoolcannot afford to ignore. The good news is thatChristian educators, operating within the bibli-cal framework, have a strategic advantage overthose with other orientations because they havean epistemological and metaphysical groundingfor their value system, which is not available toothers. As Robert Pazmiño puts it, “the Chris-tian educator can propose higher values be-cause he or she can answer such questions as:

Adventist

education that does

not provide a

biblical understand-

ing of the arts,

sciences, humani-

ties, and the

world of work is not

Christian.


When modern

culture lost the

concept of an eter-

nal God it also

lost the idea that

there are

universal values

that apply

across time, individ-

uals, and cultures.


What are persons and their ultimate end? Whatis the meaning and purpose of human activity?What, or rather, who is God? These questionscan be answered with a certainty and suretywhich is not possible outside of a revealedfaith.”49

Pazmiño also points out the existence of ahierarchy of values, with spiritual values pro-viding the context for evaluating options inethics and aesthetics, as well as in the scien-tific, political, and social realms.50 That beingthe case, Christian educators must purposefullydevelop formal and informal curricula in thelight of biblical values. The biblical value sys-tem stands at the very foundation of Christianeducation.

And, we need to note, the values taught ina biblically based school system will not relateonly to individual decision-making but will alsoreflect upon the social whole. Like the Old Tes-tament prophets, Adventist education will raisesignificant issues related to social justice in anunjust world because biblical valuing involvesthe public as well as the private world of be-lievers.

As we view the Christian curriculum in allof its complexity, we must never forget the con-troversy between the forces of good and thepowers of evil within our metaphysics, episte-mology, axiology, and our individual lives. Theconflict between Christ and Satan is evident inthe curriculum. Each Adventist school is a bat-tlefield in which the forces of Christ are beingchallenged by the legions of Satan. The out-come will, to a large extent, be determined bythe position given to the Bible in the Adventistschool. If Adventist schools are to be trulyChristian, then the biblical perspective must bethe foundation and context of all that is done.

Methodological Considerations forAdventist Educators

A major determinant of the teaching andlearning methodologies of any philosophy ofeducation is the educational goals of that per-spective and the epistemological-metaphysicalframework in which those goals are couched.The aims of Adventist education go beyond ac-cumulating cognitive knowledge, gaining self-awareness, and coping successfully with theenvironment. To be sure, Adventist educationshares those aspects of learning with other sys-tems of education, but beyond that, it has themore far-reaching goals of reconciling individ-uals to God and one another and restoring theimage of God in them. The methodologies cho-sen by the Adventist educator must take those

pre-eminent purposes into consideration.That does not mean that somehow Adventist

education will invent unique and original waysof teaching in the same sense that Christianityis a unique religion and Christ is a unique per-son. Obviously, Adventist educators will usemany, if not all, of the same methods as otherteachers. They will, however, select and em-phasize those methodologies that best aid themin helping their students to develop Christlikecharacters and reach the other goals of A d -ventist education.

Education, Thinking, Self-Control, and Discipline

Central to the issue of the development ofChristian character is recognizing that humanbeings are not simply highly developed animalsthat respond to reward and punishment. TheBible pictures human beings as being createdin the image of God and having, even in theirfallen state, the ability to think reflectively.

Because humans can engage in reflectivethought, they can make meaningful decisionsabout their own actions and destiny. Studentsin an Adventist school must be educated tothink for themselves rather than merely betrained, like animals, to respond to environ-mental cues. Human beings, created in God’simage, are to be educated “to be thinkers, andnot mere reflectors of other men’s thought.”51

It is true that there are some training aspects inthe human learning process, but those ap-proaches generally dominate only when theperson is very young or mentally impaired. Theideal, as we shall see below, is to move as rap-idly as possible, with any given student, fromthe training process to the more reflective ed-ucative process.

At the heart of Adventist education is thegoal of empowering students to think and actreflectively for themselves rather than just torespond to the word or will of an authority fig-ure. Self-control, rather than externally im-posed control, is central in Adventist educationand discipline. Ellen White put it nicely whenshe wrote that “the discipline of a human beingwho has reached the years of intelligenceshould differ from the training of a dumb ani-mal. The beast is taught only submission to itsmaster. For the beast, the master is mind, judg-ment, and will. This method, sometimes em-ployed in the training of children, makes themlittle more than automatons. Mind, will, con-science, are under the control of another. It isnot God’s purpose that any mind should bethus dominated. Those who weaken or destroyindividuality assume a responsibility that can



result only in evil. While under authority, thechildren may appear like well-drilled soldiers;but when the control ceases, the character willbe found to lack strength and steadfastness.Having never learned to govern himself, theyouth recognizes no restraint except the re-quirement of parents or teacher. This removed,he knows not how to use his liberty, and oftengives himself up to indulgence that proves hisruin.”52

It is for that reason that Ellen White neverseemed to tire of driving home the point that“the object of discipline is the training of thechild for self-government. He should be taughtself-reliance and self-control. Therefore as soonas he is capable of understanding, his reasonshould be enlisted on the side of obedience. Letall dealing with him be such as to show obedi-ence to be just and reasonable. Help him to seethat all things are under law, and that disobe-dience leads, in the end, to disaster and suffer-ing.”53

Please note that in the above quotationsEllen White ties together education, thinking,self-control, and discipline. That is an impor-tant insight and one that we too often overlook.In fact, most people equate discipline and pun-ishment. But they are two quite distinct con-cepts. Ideally, punishment comes into play onlyafter discipline has failed. Punishment is a neg-ative, remedial activity, whereas discipline ispositive and stands at the core of developing aChristian character.

In a Christian approach to education, humanbeings must be brought to the place where theycan make their own decisions and take respon-sibility for those choices without continuallybeing coaxed, directed, and/or forced by apowerful authority. When that goal is achieved,and the power to think and to act upon one’sthoughts is internalized, then people havereached moral maturity. They are not under thecontrol of another, but are making their ownmoral decisions about how to act toward Godand other people. Such is the role of self-controlin the shaping of human beings in the image ofGod. Psychiatrist Erich Fromm makes the samepoint when he writes that “the mature personhas come to the point where he is his ownmother and his own father.”54

Discipline is not something an authority fig-ure does to a child, but something that adultshelp children learn to do for themselves. JohnDewey, America’s most influential 20th-centuryphilosopher, reflected on that point when hewrote that “a person who is trained to considerhis actions, to undertake them deliberately . . .is disciplined. Add to this ability a power to en-

dure in an intelligently chosen course in theface of distraction, confusion, and difficulty,and you have the essence of discipline. Disci-pline means power at command; mastery of theresources available for carrying through the ac-tion undertaken. To know what one is to doand to move to do it promptly and by use of therequisite means is to be disciplined.”55

Discipline as self-control has its roots deepin the Christian concepts of character develop-ment, responsibility, and perseverance. Wenoted earlier that character development is oneof the major aims of Adventist education. Char-acter development and discipline are inextrica-bly entwined. “Strength of character,” EllenWhite wrote, “consists of two things—power ofwill and power of self-control.”56 The will, fur-thermore, “is the governing power in the natureof man, the power of decision, or choice.”57 Partof the function of Christian discipline in thehome and school is to guide and mold thepower of the will as students move toward ma-turity.

Internal discipline concentrates on developingchildren’s wills through allowing them to makechoices and to experience the consequences.Arthur Combs has pointed out that “responsibil-ity is learned from being given responsibility; itis never learned from having it withheld. . . .Learning to be responsible requires being al-lowed to make decisions, to observe results, andto deal with the consequences of those decisions.A curriculum designed to teach responsibilityneeds to provide continuous opportunities forstudents to engage in such processes. To do so,however, requires taking risks, a terribly fright-ening prospect for many teachers and adminis-trators.”58

But even the very problem of allowing oth-ers to make mistakes arises from the nature ofGod and His love. After all, He created a uni-verse in which mistakes are possible when Hecould have established one that was fool-proof—but only at the price of creating humansas something less than beings in His image. Be-ings without genuine choices are automatonsrather than free moral agents. God created hu-mans in such a way as to make character de-velopment a definite possibility. It is importantto remember that when people do not have theoption of making wrong choices, neither dothey have the ability to make correct ones. Peo-ple cannot develop character if they are con-stantly controlled through having their choicescurtailed. They are then, in essence, merelycomplex machines rather than moral agentscreated in God’s image. Love and freedom arerisky and dangerous, but they are the way God



has chosen to run His universe.In a Christian framework, the answer to a

lack of discipline is not bigger and better strate-gies to bring young people under control, butconscious development and application of tech-niques to build self-control and a sense of re-sponsibility in each child. We gain nothing ifby authoritative methodologies we manage toproduce quiet, order, and student conformitywhile sacrificing intelligent behavior, responsi-bility, and creativity.

Developing intelligent self-control in others isnot an easy task. Ellen White writes that “thiswork is the nicest [most delicate and discerning],the most difficult, ever committed to human be-ings. It requires the most delicate tact, the finestsusceptibility, a knowledge of human nature, anda heaven-born faith and patience.”59

The number of biblically based books writtenon this crucial aspect of Adventist education isnot great. The best place to begin is the chapterentitled “Discipline” in Ellen White’s Educa-tion.60 It is perhaps the most insightful chapterthat she ever wrote in the field of education.Deeply rooted in a Christian philosophy, it is amethodological exposition second to none. Read-ing those 11 pages every week for their entire ca-reer, would enrich every teacher’s ministry. Hereare a few samples from that chapter:

• “The wise educator, in dealing with hispupils, will seek to encourage confidence andto strengthen the sense of honor. Children andyouth are benefited by being trusted. . . . Sus-picion demoralizes, producing the very evils itseeks to prevent. . . . An atmosphere of unsym-pathetic criticism is fatal to effort.”61

• “The true object of reproof is gained onlywhen the wrongdoer himself is led to see hisfault and his will is enlisted for its correction.When this is accomplished, point him to thesource of pardon and power.”62

• “Many youth who are thought incorrigibleare not at heart so hard as they appear. Manywho are regarded as hopeless may be reclaimedby wise discipline. These are often the oneswho most readily melt under kindness. Let theteacher gain the confidence of the tempted one,and by recognizing and developing the good inhis character, he can, in many cases, correct theevil without calling attention to it.”63

Such are the challenges and possibilities ofredemptive discipline in line with Christ’s min-istry of seeking the lost and shaping the char-acters of those in a relationship to God throughHim. Many of the principles of redemptive dis-cipline are expounded upon in a very practicalway in Jim Roy’s Soul Shapers,64 which de-scribes the methodologies that lie at the foun-

dation of the practice of Adventist education.One model that describes the progressive in-

ternalization of discipline appears in Figure 565

on page 51. It illustrates in a general way the re-lationship between internal and external controland the weaning process that is the goal of re-demptive discipline. Infants and extremely youngchildren need a great deal of external control, butthe maturation process should lead progressivelyto greater self-control and less external control,until individual children have reached the pointof moral maturity. At that time, they are ready totake their place as responsible persons in theadult world. Christian discipline, therefore, isboth a positive and liberating power. It “is not,”A. S. De Jong points out, “to keep the child downor to break him, but to lift him up or to heal him;for that reason discipline may be called upon torepress only in order to set free, to train childrenin the exercise of the freedom of the children ofGod.”66 The end product of Christian disciplinewill be young people who “do right because theybelieve it is right and not because some authoritytells them to.”67

The connection between the developing ofself-control and the restoration of the image ofGod has serious implications for educators asthey select appropriate methodologies for theChristian school. That concept should act as ascreening device for Adventist educators as theychoose learning and teaching strategies for theclassroom. They must utilize those methodolo-gies that will help to develop what Harro VanBrummelen refers to as “responsible disciples.”68

Beyond Cognition to Commitment and Responsible Action

Closely related to the above discussion is theidea that Christian knowing is not merely pas-sive. It is, as we noted in our discussion of epis-temology, an active, dynamic experience. Thus,in a Christian school, instructional methodol-ogy must move beyond strategies for passingon information. Nicholas Wolterstorff forcefullyargues that Christian education “must aim atproducing alterations in what students tend(are disposed, are inclined) to do. It must aimat tendency learning.” He points out that Chris-tian schools must move beyond techniques formerely teaching the knowledge and abilities re-quired for acting responsibly, since studentscan assimilate those ideas without developinga “tendency to engage in such action.” Thus “aprogram of Christian education will take thatfurther step of cultivating the appropriate ten-dencies in the child. It will have tendency learn-ing as one of its fundamental goals.”69

Donald Oppewal has developed a teaching



methodology explicitly based upon the dy-namic epistemology of Scripture. While notingthat actual practice is the ideal, Oppewal sug-gests a three-stage instructional methodologyaimed to produce a dynamic learning experi-ence. In the consider stage, the learner is pre-sented with the new material. During the sec-ond phase—the choose phase—“the options forresponse are clarified and their implicationsbetter understood. . . . If the first phase dram-atizes what it is the learner faces, the secondphase highlights whatever oughts are in-volved.” In the third stage—the commitphase—students move “beyond intellectual un-derstanding, beyond exposure of the moral andother considerations and toward commitment

The Bible makes it plain that this educa-tional environment was to be used to awakeninquiry and develop curiosity in the minds ofthe young. The interest thus developed was tobe followed by deliberate instruction. Note, forexample, the instructions given for the highlysymbolic keeping of the Passover. Moses wrotethat this ritual would lead the young to ask,“What do you mean by this service?” and thatthe family elders would then have a natural op-portunity to engage the minds of the youth in ameaningful learning experience (Exodus 12:25-27; see also 13:3-16; Deuteronomy 6:20-25).

A major principle underlying Old Testamentpedagogy is that instruction should not beforced upon unready minds. Rather, instruc-tional methods used in the Old Testament cap-italized upon human beings’ natural interest ina topic in order to engage the people’s mindsin a dynamic interchange. Central to the wholeeducational complex of ancient Israel was thesacrificial system, which pointed forward to thelife, death, and work of Jesus. That system,with its pageantry, beauty, and life-taking awe-someness, provided one of the major object les-sons of the ancient world. It was an educationaldevice that taught through both its appeal tothe senses and the curiosity it generated.

Moving into the New Testament, we findJesus as the ultimate teaching model. “In theTeacher sent from God,” Ellen White asserts,“all true educational work finds its center.”71

We can learn a great deal about appropriatemethods for conveying the Christian message,both in schools and elsewhere, through an ex-amination of the specific teaching techniquesChrist used and the way He related to people.We examined the relationship aspect of Histeaching above in the section on the ministryof teaching. Here our focus will be on His in-structional methods. This short discussion is atbest an introduction to that topic. But the Chris-tian educator can glean a great deal about thesubject through an inductive and analyticalstudy of Christ’s methods in the Gospels. EllenWhite’s education-related books are also veryinsightful on the topic.72

Roy Zuck has noted that “Jesus succeededas a masterful Teacher” largely because of “hisremarkable ability to capture the interest of hisaudience.” He aroused “their desire to learnwhat he was teaching.”73 That was especiallytrue in His use of parables, object lessons, andprovocative questions.

Perhaps the most obvious teaching methodof Jesus was His use of illustrations. Two of Hismost frequent illustrative formats were theparable and the object lesson. Parables form a

Figure 5. A Developmental Model of Discipline

Point atWhich anIndividualBegins toReason

Point ofMoralMaturity(Self-controlled)

External Controland TrainingAspects

L IN E OF MO R

A L DE VE LO P

ME NT

Internal Controland EducationAspects

to act on both the is and the ought.” Commit-ment to a form of action, claims Oppewal, isthe very minimum expectation in the contextof biblical knowing and teaching.70 A fourthstage, of course, needs to be added wheneverpossible and practicable; namely the actionphase. In that phase opportunity for acting onthose commitments is provided.

The Bible and Instructional MethodologyThe central epistemological source for Chris-

tians, the Bible, provides a wealth of informationrelated to methodologies used by God in theprocess of educating human beings. Even acas ual reading of the Old Testament reveals thatancient Israel was immersed in a total educa-tional environment, which was consciouslyconstructed to aid in the spiritual, intellectual,social, and physical development of its citizens.This environment was structured to provide life-long learning experiences through holidays,sabbatical years, historic memorials, the arts,home instruction, public reading of the Torah,and a host of other devices.


A major principle

underlying Old

Testament peda-

gogy is that

instruction should

not be forced

upon unready

minds.


large portion of Jesus’ teachings recorded in theNew Testament—about 25 percent of Mark and50 percent of Luke is in the form of parables.The parable has the advantage of being con-crete, appealing to the imagination, and havingintrinsic interest. John Price has written that“people who turn away from facts and argu-ments will listen readily to stories. Not onlythat, but they will remember them and be in-fluenced by them.”74

Part of the power of Christ’s parables comesfrom their relevance to the everyday lives of Hishearers. When He dealt with the lost sheep, thesowing of seeds, and the good Samaritan, Hewas describing things in people’s daily experi-ence. That aroused interest, engaged theirminds, and helped them remember the storyand its lesson as they interacted with the topicsof His parables in their daily living.

A second method of illustration used byJesus was the object lesson. While standing ona hillside, He discusses the topic of anxiety.Reaching down to pluck a lily, He notes itsbeauty, and gives the lesson that if God soclothed “the grass of the field, which today isalive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven,will he not much more clothe you” (Matthew6:30). His use of the coin in His discussionabout the paying of taxes certainly made Hisaccompanying words more effective (Matthew22:15-22).

Commenting on Christ’s teaching methods,Ellen White wrote that “in parables and com-parisons He found the best method of commu-nicating divine truth. In simple language, usingfigures and illustrations drawn from the naturalworld, He opened spiritual truth to His hearers,and gave expression to precious principles thatwould have passed from their minds, and leftscarcely a trace, had He not connected Hiswords with stirring scenes of life, experience,or nature. In this way He called forth their in-terest, aroused inquiry, and when He had fullysecured their attention, He decidedly impressedupon them the testimony of truth. In this wayHe was able to make sufficient impressionupon the heart so that afterward His hearerscould look upon the thing with which He con-nected His lesson, and recall the words of thedivine Teacher.”75

Another of Jesus’ teaching methods was theuse of thought-compelling questions. He usedthe 213 separate questions recorded in theGospels to drive home spiritual truths, to drawout responses of commitment, and to deal withHis detractors. Regarding that last point, teach-ers at times have students who would like toput them “on the spot.” Jesus answered His de-

tractors’ questions by asking questions. Byusing that strategy, He could maneuver theminto answering their own questions. His suc-cess in the disciplinary use of questions can beseen from the fact that the Gospels record at theclose of a series of questions engineered to trapHim that “after that no one dared to ask himany question” (Mark 12:34).

In regard to the use of questions as a learn-ing device, John A. Marquis has written that“teaching is not telling, because a great deal ofour telling elicits no mental response. So ourLord had a habit of throwing in a question nowand then that broke up the serenity of his classand made them sit up and think.”76 The aim ofthe Christian teacher is not to control minds,but to develop them.

Jesus’ pedagogical methodology utilizedboth theory and practice. For example, He al-ternated periods of instruction devoted to thedisciples with times when He sent them out toapply what they had learned (Matthew 10:5-15;Luke 10:1-20). That undoubtedly helped themrealize their need for further instruction, fixedthe successful lessons in their minds, and keptthem from separating the theoretical from theexperiential. The practical side of education isa most effective teaching-learning device. Jesuswas more interested in conveying knowledgethat would help men and women in their dailylives than He was in presenting knowledge asan abstraction. In the process, He united theo-retical knowledge with both daily life and theeternal realities of the kingdom of God and thegreat controversy between good and evil.

So much more can be said about the teach-ing methods of Jesus, but will require your fu-ture study. Meanwhile, we will close with threeinsightful quotes from Ellen White. First,“Christ always used simple language,” yet Hiswords had depth of meaning and spoke to theheart.77 Second, “in His teaching He camedown to” the level of His students.78 And, third,“Jesus did not disdain to repeat old, familiartruths,” yet “He separated [them] from thecompanionship of error,” and “reset them intheir proper framework.”79 That last statementis the informative, integrative, and interpretivefunction of Christ’s teaching methodology; afunction, we noted in our study of the Christiancurriculum, that must stand at the center of allAdventist education.

The Social Function of Adventist Education

Before delving into the specifics of Adventisteducation’s social function, we need to con-



sider the cultural transmission function of edu-cation. We find that function in the Bible. Abra-ham was chosen because God saw that hewould be faithful in teaching his household(Genesis 18:19). God through Moses gave theIsraelites an educational system that touchedevery phase of their lives, and Jesus’ partingwords were “‘teach all nations’” (Matthew28:19, 20, KJV).

The Strategic Role of EducationEducation holds a strategic position in every

society because all youth must pass throughsome type of educational experience to preparethem to fill society’s responsible positions. Thefuture of any society will be shaped by its cur-rent youth. And the direction they will take thatsociety will to a large extent be determined bytheir education. Thus the control of educationalinstitutions and the content to be taught inthose institutions has been a perennial socialissue.

George S. Counts has noted that “to shapeeducational policy is to guard the path thatleads from the present to the future. . . .Throughout the centuries since special educa-tional agencies were first established, the strate-gic position of the school has been appreciatedby kings, emperors, and popes, by rebels, re-formers, and prophets. Hence, among those op-posing forces found in all complex societies, astruggle for the control of the school is alwaysevident. Every group or sect endeavors to passon to its own children and to the children ofothers that culture which it happens to esteem;and every privileged class seeks to perpetuateits favored position in society by means of ed-ucation.”80

Likewise, Counts observed, the failure ofrev o lutions has been a record of their inabilityto bring education into the service of the revo-lutionary cause. Revolutionary bodies will pos-sess no more permanence than the small bandsof idealists who conceived them if the childrenof the next generation cannot be persuaded toembrace the values of the revolution. There-fore, the history of both the Soviets and the Na-tional Socialists has demonstrated that one ofthe first measures taken by revolutionary gov-ernments is to place all educational agenciesunder the direct control of the state and to givethe schools a central part in building the newsociety.81

A similar logic, of course, stimulated the for-mation of the American and other democraticeducational systems. And in that logic we findthe genesis of the Adventist interest in educa-tion in all its forms. Ellen White picked up on

that thinking when she wrote that “with suchan army of workers as our youth, rightlytrained, . . . how soon the message of a cruci-fied, risen, and soon-coming Saviour might becarried to the whole world! How soon mightthe end come—the end of suffering and sorrowand sin! How soon, in place of a possessionhere, with its blight of sin and pain, our chil-dren might receive their inheritance where ‘therighteous shall inherit the land, and dwelltherein forever.’”82

Adventist Education’s Conservativeand Revolutionary Roles

God’s ideal for Seventh-day Adventist edu-cation reflects both a conservative social func-tion and a revolutionary one. It is to be conser-vative in the sense that it seeks to transmit theunchanging truths of the Bible across time, butit is to be revolutionary as a change agent of arighteous God in a sinful world.

In that latter posture, it seeks to change thestatus quo on the individual level through theconversion of human beings from their old wayof life to the Christian way. Transformation,conversion, and death and rebirth are some ofthe words that the Bible applies to the dynam-ics of Christianity as it transforms the lives ofindividuals, moving them from an orientationof self-centeredness to one of God-centeredservice to both Him and other people.

But change at the individual level is onlyone aspect of the church’s revolutionary role. Itis also to be an agent for broader change in theongoing struggle for social justice in a sinfulworld. It is part of God’s ideal not only to feedthe poor (Matthew 25:31-46), but also to helpmake this earth a better place to live throughsocial reform.

But once again, the revolutionary role mustnot stop there. According to the Bible, social re-form, for all of its good points, is insufficient tostraighten out a crooked world driven by theforces of sin and human greed. The only realsolution to the sin problem as pictured in theBible is the Second Advent. While the Gospelsset forth that truth (see Matthew 24), it is es-pecially evident in the Book of Revelation. Thatbook in particular indicates the divine solutionto earth’s woes. Thus the apex of the church’srevolutionary function is not merely to trans-form people from sinful selfishness to a life ofservice or to organize them to become changeagents for earthly reform, but to preach a mes-sage that helps prepare the world for the endof history and the establishment of a new earthbuilt upon God’s principles. That new earth,the Bible tells us, does not come about through



human effort, but as the result of God’s break-ing into human history through Christ’s secondcoming. That event is the Event of events inworld history. It is the ultimate revolution.

Seventh-day Adventism from its beginninghas viewed itself as an agent of God in that ul-timate revolution. In particular, it has seen itscalling to be the preaching of the apocalypticmessage of the three angels that stands at theheart of the Book of Revelation (Revelation14:6-12); a message that God commanded to begiven immediately before the Second Advent(vss,14-20). It is a worldwide message that callspeople back to faithfulness to God, even ashuman societies move toward their final end.It is a message of the coming Christ who willnot only feed the poor but abolish hunger; whowill not only comfort the grieving but eradicatedeath (Revelation. 21:1-4). Adventism has beencalled to preach to a lost world the ultimateHope that by comparison pales all other hopes.The central purpose of Adventism is to preachthat ultimate Hope. And the primary reason forthe establishment of Adventist schools is to pre-pare people for that event and for the task ofspreading the good news of the coming Savior.

Within that revolutionary apocalyptic con-text, the conservative function of Adventist ed-ucation is twofold: (1) to pass on the legacy ofBible truth, and (2) to provide a protected at-mosphere in which that transmission can takeplace and in which Christian values can be im-parted to the young in their formative yearsthrough both the formal curriculum and the in-formal aspects of the educational program,such as the peer group and extracurricular ac-tivities.

The Christian Church and its adherents havethe unique role of being in the world, withoutbeing of the world (John 17:14-18). How toachieve that seemingly contradictory positionhas remained a challenge to the church sincethe time of Christ.

The separatist strand of the paradox has ledthe church to establish protected atmospheresfor its youth during their formative years, suchas religious schools and youth groups. Suchagencies act as refuges where young peoplefrom Adventist families can learn skills, atti-tudes, values, and knowledge without beingoverwhelmed by the worldview and culturalmores of the larger society. The atmosphere inwhich these activities take place is designed tobe conducive to the transferring of Adventistculture to the younger generation. Parents andchurch members are willing to support thistype of education financially because they rec-ognize that it differs philosophically from the

cultural milieu of the larger society, and theybelieve that the Adventist worldview is the cor-rect one in terms of metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology.

Seen from such a viewpoint, the primaryfunction of the Adventist school is not to be anevangelistic agency to convert unbelievers(even though that may be a side result), butrather to help young people from Adventisthomes meet Jesus and surrender their lives toHim. Implicit in this function is a distinct real-ization that if the majority of the student peergroup in a denominational school does not es-pouse Adventist values, then the school’s spir-itual mission probably will not be accom-plished. Ad ventist education’s conservativefunction there fore provides a protected atmos-phere for the nurturing of the church’s youth;an environment in which all values, skills, andaspects of knowledge can be taught from theAdventist philosophic perspective.

Beyond the conservative function of Ad -ventist education is its revolutionary role. Atthe beginning of the Christian era, Christ’s greatgospel commission sent His disciples into allthe world to make disciples of all nations, andto teach people everything that He had com-manded (Matthew 28:19, 20). And at the endof the Christian era Christ has commanded thatthe good news of salvation, Second Advent,and coming judgment also be preached “‘toevery nation and tribe and tongue and people’”(Revelation 14:6). While the commission ofMatthew 28 has been sounded by Christianityat large, the Church has neglected the impera-tive of Revelation 14. It is that latter commis-sion that forms the basis for the existence ofSeventh-day Adventism. From its inception, thechurch has believed that it has a unique com-mission to preach the three angels’ messages ofRevelation 14:6-12 to all the earth before theSecond Advent (vss. 14-20). Adventism’s mes-sage is a call to faithfulness to God as earthlyhistory moves toward its final days. The evan-gelistic imperative of Revelation 14 has literallydriven Adventism to every part of the earth.

Christian churches (including Seventh-dayAdventism) have too often been conservativebastions of society, when they should functionas agents for change. The life of Jesus as por-trayed in the Bible can best be seen as model-ing change rather than conservatism. He wasthe Reformer of reformers. And He called out apeople to become change agents in His ongoingmission.

The conservative functions of a Christianschool are important because they play a rolein the church’s revolutionary task of preparing



its youth to become evangelistic workers. Thatdoes not mean, it should be emphasized, thatall students will be educated for church em-ployment. Each one will, however, be trainedto be a witness to the love of God in a sinfulworld, regardless of his or her career goals.

As such, the Adventist school can be seenas a staging ground for Christian activism andmissionary work. It provides, ideally, not onlythe knowledge underlying the evangelistic im-perative of the church, but also practical,guided activities in the larger community thatensure that students develop the skills neces-sary to meet people with the message of Jesusand to perform their individual roles in the con-text of God’s church on earth. Edward Suther-land wrote that in God’s plan “the Christianschool should be the nursery in which reform-ers are born and reared—reformers who wouldgo forth from the school burning with practicalzeal and enthusiasm to take their places asleaders in these reforms.”83

In summary, the social function of the Ad-ventist school has both a conservative and arevolutionary aspect. The commingling of thosetwo roles empowers the developing student tobe in the world but not of the world. Inessence, the function of the Adventist school isto educate the youth of the church for serviceto God and their neighbors, rather than to trainthem for self-service through the acquisition ofa “good job” and a comfortable income. Thoseoutcomes, of course, may be by-products of Ad-ventist education, but they are not central to itspurpose.

Service to others was the essence of Christ’slife, and it is therefore the ultimate aim of Ad-ventist education. In harmony with the Bible,Adventist education will develop Christianswho can relate well to others in this world. Buteven more important, Adventist schools willeducate students for citizenship in the kingdomof heaven.

Closing Perspective

“The education that does not furnish knowl-edge as enduring as eternity, is of no pur-pose.”84 That frank statement was not made bya narrow religious bigot, but by a person whoin the same paragraph writes that “it is rightthat you should feel that you must climb to thehighest round of the educational ladder. Philos-ophy and history are important studies; butyour sacrifice of time and money will availnothing, if you do not use your attainments forthe honor of God and the good of humanity.Unless the knowledge of science is a stepping-

stone to the attainment of the highest purposes,it is worthless. . . . Unless you keep heaven andthe future, immortal life before you, your at-tainments are of no permanent value. But ifJesus is your teacher, not simply on one day ofthe week, but every day, every hour, you mayhave His smile upon you in the pursuit of liter-ary acquirements.”85 For Ellen White, the valueof education was related to perspective. Abroad literary education was of great value if itkept eternal realities, goals, and values at theforefront.

That perspective brings us to the ultimatequestions regarding Adventist education thatmust be asked by parents, school boards, Ad-ventist educational professionals, and thechurch at large: Why have Seventh-day Ad -ventist schools? Why should the church spendhundreds of millions of dollars each year tosupport thousands of schools around the worldwhen free, high-quality public education isoften available? How can the denomination jus-tify such expenditures in the light of the otherpressing needs of the church and the world itserves? The answer to such questions obvi-ously has a link to the purpose of Adventist ed-ucation. If Adventist schools fulfill a sufficientlydistinctive and important purpose, the achieve-ment of that purpose is worth the expense.

That answer brings us to the frontier of whythere should be Christian (rather than specifi-cally Adventist) schools in general. We havenoted throughout the study of the topic thatChristian education is the only education thatcan meet people’s deepest needs because onlyChristian educators understand the core of thehuman problem. The redemptive aim of Chris-tian education is what makes it Christian. Theprimary function of Christian education is tolead young people into a transforming, savingrelationship with Jesus Christ. It is in the con-text of that relationship that such secondaryfunctions as academic achievement, characterdevelopment, the formation of a Christianmind, and education for social responsibilityand the world of work must of necessity takeplace. But it is crucial to realize that all but oneof those secondary goals can take place in anon-Christian school. Thus, when Christian ed-ucators aim only at the goals that fall withinthe realm of all education they have failed evenbefore they begin. As a result, when Christianeducators neglect to emphasize the redemp-tive role of their schools, they make theirschools both unimportant and unnecessary.

But what about distinctively Adventist Chris-tian schools? What justifies their existence if allChristian schools ideally aim at the redemptive

According to the

Bible, social reform,

for all of its good

points, is insuffi-

cient to straighten

out a crooked world

driven by the

forces of sin and

human greed.


For Ellen White,

the value of educa-

tion was related

to perspective.

A broad literary edu-

cation was of

great value if it kept

eternal realities,

goals, and values at

the forefront.


function of education? The answer to thosequestions brings us to the heart of why the Sev-enth-day Adventist Church even exists as a sep-arate Christian denomination.

Too often, we see Adventism as merely an-other denomination with a few different doc-trines and some countercultural dietary prac-tices. But the core of Adventist identity from itsvery inception has been its conviction that it isa movement of prophecy, a church with a spe-cial message to proclaim to all the world as setforth in the heart of the Apocalypse of John.86

And there are sound biblical reasons for thatunderstanding. Revelation 12:17 highlights thefact that at the end of time God will have a peo-ple that keep all His commandments and thattheir commandment keeping will eventuallystimulate a reaction from the last-day dragonpower. “And the dragon,” John wrote, “waswroth with the woman, and went to make warwith the remnant of her seed, which keep thecommandments of God” (KJV). Revelation 13and 14 pick up that theme, with chapter 13 ex-panding on the dynamics of the last-day dragonpower, and chapter 14 presenting the messageof the last-day woman (church) and climaxingwith the second advent of Christ. In that con-text, the three angels’ messages of Revelation14:6-12 highlight an everlasting gospel that isto be preached to all the world, a judgment-hour emphasis as earth’s history moves towardits conclusion, a call to worship the CreatorGod in contrast to honoring the beast, and adeclaration regarding the fall of oppressiveBabylon that has confused humanity by substi-tuting human words for the word of God. Thethird angel climaxes its message in verse 12,which reads: “Here is the patience of the saints:here are they that keep the commandments ofGod, and the faith of Jesus” (KJV).

Seventh-day Adventists noted from their be-ginning that the Sabbath commandment is em-phasized in Revelation 12-14. At the end oftime, we are told in Revelation 14, everybodywill be worshipping somebody: either the Cre-ator God of the Sabbath who made heavenand earth and sea (14:7; Exodus 20:8-11; Gen-esis 2:1-3) or the beast (Revelation 14:9). AndAdventists have been quick to note that imme-diately after the giving of the three angels’messages Christ comes to harvest the earth(vss. 14-20).

While the general Christian community haslargely ignored those messages in their escha-tological context, Seventh-day Adventism foundin them its marching orders and purpose as adistinct denomination. It is that purpose thathas literally driven Adventism to the ends of

the earth until it has become the most wide-spread unified Protestant body in the history ofChristianity. Adventists have been willing tosacrifice their lives and their money to achievethat goal. And in the process they developed achurch organization to spearhead that thrustand an educational system and publishing min-istry to enlighten and convict its membershipand prepare them to either go to all the worldthemselves or to sponsor others to fulfill the de-nomination’s unique mission. It is no accidentthat Adventism sent its first overseas mission-ary and opened its first denominationally spon-sored school the same year (1874). Nor is it co-incidental that every major revival in Adventisteducation has been stimulated by a revival inits apocalyptic mission.87

We dare not become bashful about that mis-sion. It is the only valid reason for the existenceof Seventh-day Adventism. The possibility oflosing its apocalyptic vision and Adventism’splace in prophetic history is the greatest threatthat the denomination and its educational sys-tem face.88

That threat brings me to my next point. AnAdventist educational ministry that has lost itshold on the apocalyptic vision has failed—notjust partially, but totally.

Let me illustrate the depth of the problem.Some time ago, I received a call from an acad-emy principal who had been inspired by mykeynote at the 2006 North American Divisioneducational convention on “Seventh-day Ad-ventist Education and the Apocalyptic Vi-sion.”89 As a result, he determined to hireteachers who truly understood the uniquenessof Adventism and its mission to the world.With that commitment in mind, he went to thelocal Adventist college and interviewed each ofthe graduating education majors. His questionto each was the same: What is the differencebetween Adventist education and evangelicalChristian education? Not one student could tellhim. Somehow, he concluded, that college hadfailed in passing on Adventism’s unique iden-tity and mission, even though the institutionhad been established to develop educationalprofessionals.

That thought brings me to the bottom line—Adventist education is important only if it istruly Adventist. A school that has lost sight ofits reason for being, that has forgotten its mes-sage and mission, will eventually lose its sup-port. And it should. To be absolutely frank, aSeventh-day Adventist school that is not bothChristian and Adventist is an unnecessary in-stitution. All its functions can be achieved byschools in the evangelical sector, and most of



them by the public sector.Pastor Shane Anderson is right on in his re-

cently published How to Kill Adventist Educa-tion when he points out that “Adventist parentsincreasingly aren’t willing to pay the price tosend their kids” to institutions that have losttheir purpose. “After all,” he writes, “why paythousands of dollars to send your child to aschool that is now no longer substantially dif-ferent from the average Christian school—or thelocal public school—down the street?”90

With that insight, we are back to the impor-tance of the study of the philosophy of educa-tion and KNIGHT’S LAW and its two corollar-ies. Put simply, KNIGHT’S LAW reads that “Itis impossible to arrive at your destination un-less you know where you are going.” CorollaryNumber 1: “A school that does not come closeto attaining its goals will eventually lose its sup-port.” Corollary Number 2: “We think onlywhen it hurts.” The purpose of the study of Ad-ventist educational philosophy is to get thosewho teach and administer in Adventist schoolsthinking before it hurts and to put them in aproactive mode to develop schools that are ed-ucative in the fullest sense while at the sametime being both self-consciously Christian andAdventist. �

POINTS TO PONDER• Discuss why the Bible is so important in

Christian education.• In what ways does Herbert Spencer’s ques-

tion (“What Knowledge Is of Most Worth?”)help us understand a Christian curriculum?

• What do we mean when we say that theBible is the foundation and context of a Chris-tian approach to curriculum?

• Why is it that a Christian teaching method-ology will not be unique?

• What are the main methodological lessonsthat we can learn from the teaching ministry ofJesus?

• How is it that the Christian school canhave both a conservative and a revolutionarysocial function? Is one function more importantthan the other? Why?

• Discuss the implications when we say thatthe denomination’s schools must be both Chris-tian and Adventist.

This continuing education article has beenpeer reviewed.

Dr. George R. Knight hastaught at the elementary,secondary, and universitylevels, and has also servedthe Seventh-day AdventistChurch as a school admin-istrator and pastor. He haswritten widely in the areasof Adventist educational

philosophy as well as Adventist educational andchurch history. Now retired, but still writing andspeaking at conventions and camp meetings, helives in Rogue River, Oregon.

NOTES AND REFERENCES1. Daryl Eldridge, “Curriculum,” in Evangelical Diction-

ary of Christian Education, Michael J. Anthony, ed. (GrandRapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001), p. 188.

2. Les L. Steele, On the Way: A Practical Theology of Chris-tian Education (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1990), p. 186.

3. Herbert Spencer, Education: Intellectual, Moral, andPhysical (New York: D. Appleton, 1909), pp. 1-87; see espe-cially, pages 10 and 11.

4. Ibid., pp. 13, 14.5. Ibid., pp. 84-86, 63.6. Mark van Doren, Liberal Education (Boston: Beacon

Press, 1959), p. 108.7. Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and

Other Essays (New York: Free Press, 1967), p. 7.8. C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures: And a Second Look

(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1964).9. Frank E. Gaebelein, “Toward a Philosophy of Christian

Education,” in An Introduction to Evangelical Christian Edu-cation, J. Edward Hakes, ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1964), p. 41.

10. Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth Is God’s Truth (GrandRapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977).

11. John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University (NotreDame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), p. 19. Onthe false dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, seeGeorge R. Knight, Myths in Adventism: An Interpretive Studyof Ellen White, Education, and Related Issues (Hagerstown,Md.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2010), pp. 127-138.

12. Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind (London, S.P.C.K.,1963); Holmes, All Truth Is God’s Truth, op cit., p. 125.

13. Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College, rev.ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 18. Italics sup-plied.

14. David Elton Trueblood, “The Marks of a ChristianCollege,” in John Paul von Grueningen, ed., Toward a Chris-tian Philosophy of Higher Education (Philadelphia: Westmin-ster, 1957), p. 163.

15. Frank E. Gaebelein, “Toward a Philosophy of Chris-tian Education,” op cit., p. 37.

16. Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, Calif.:Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1952), p. 126; Ellen G. White,Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (Mountain View,Calif.: Pacific Press, 1943), p. 442.

17. White, Education, p. 125.18. Ibid., p. 190



19. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Pattern of God’s Truth: Prob-lems of Integration in Christian Education (Chicago: Moody,1968), p. 7.

20. Ibid., p. 23.21. Henry P. Van Dusen, God in Education (New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), p. 82.22. From George R. Knight, Philosophy and Education:

An Introduction in Christian Perspective, 4th ed. (BerrienSprings, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2006), p. 227. Re-produced by permission.

23. Ibid. Reproduced by permission.24. Ibid., p. 228. Reproduced by permission.25. Richard J. Edlin, The Cause of Christian Education

(Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 1994), pp. 63-66.26. See Harry Lee Poe, Christianity in the Academy:

Teaching at the Intersection of Faith and Learning (GrandRapids, Mich.: Baker, 2004), pp. 22, 23.

27. Ibid.28. Ibid., p. 22.29. Quoted in David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History

of a Concept (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), p. xvii.30. Ibid.31. For a fuller treatment of the topic of literature in the Ad-

ventist curriculum, see Knight, Myths in Adventism, op cit., pp.153-174; _____________, Philosophy and Education: An Intro-duction in Christian Perspective, 4th ed. (Berrien Springs, Mich.:Andrews University Press, 2006), pp. 229-233.

32. John Steinbeck, East of Eden (New York: Bantam,1955), p. 355.

33. A helpful aid to reading in Christian perspective isJames W. Sire, How to Read Slowly: A Christian Guide to Read-ing With the Mind (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1978).

34. T. S. Eliot, “Religion and Literature,” in LelandRyken, ed., The Christian Imagination (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker, 1981), pp. 148-150.

35. White, Education, pp. 125, 190.36. From George R. Knight, Philosophy and Education:

An Introduction in Christian Perspective, 4th ed., p. 232. Re-produced by permission.

37. Virginia Lowell Grabill, “English Literature,” inRobert W. Smith, ed., Christ and the Modern Mind (DownersGrove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1972), p. 21.

38. Quoted in Frank E. Gaebelein, The Christian, theArts, and Truth: Regaining the Vision of Greatness (Portland,Ore.: Multnomah Press, 1985), pp. 91, 92.

39. Macroevolution is defined as “large scale change inorganisms resulting in new species, genera, families, etc.”(http://carm.org/evolution-terminology), occurring overlong time periods.

40. Gaebelein, “Toward a Philosophy of Christian Edu-cation,” op cit., pp. 47, 48.

41. For Gaebelein’s discussion of the integration ofChristianity and mathematics, see The Pattern of God’sTruth, op cit., pages 57-64.

42. For one of the more sophisticated treatments of thepractical aspects of the integration of the sciences, mathemat-ics, and other fields with Christianity, see Harold Heie andDavid L. Wolfe, The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies forFaith-Discipline Integration (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,1987).

43. Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible texts in this ar-ticle are quoted from the Revised Standard Version. Bibletexts credited to RSV are from the Revised Standard Versionof the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, by the Division

of Christian Education of the National Council of theChurches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission.

44. White, Education, p. 13. Cf. __________, Christ’s Ob-ject Lessons (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ.Assn., 1941), p. 330; __________, Fundamentals of ChristianEducation (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Assn.,1923), pp. 15, 42.

45. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 71;cf. p. 21.

46. Ibid., p. 36.47. Arthur F. Holmes, Shaping Character: Moral Educa-

tion in the Christian College (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd-mans, 1991), p. vii.

48. Ronald H. Nash, The Closing of the American Heart:What’s Really Wrong With America’s Schools ([Dallas]:Probe Books, 1990), pp. 29, 30.

49. Robert W. Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in ChristianEducation: An Introduction in Evangelical Perspective, 2d ed.(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1997), p. 99.

50. Ibid., p. 101.51. White, Education, p. 17.52. Ibid., p. 288.53. Ibid., p. 287.54. Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper

and Brothers, 1956), p. 44.55. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York:

Free Press, 1966), p. 129.56. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students,

p. 222.57. White, Education, p. 289.58. Arthur W. Combs, Myths in Education: Beliefs That

Hinder Progress and Their Alternatives (Boston: Allyn andBacon, 1979), pp. 139, 140.

59. White, Education, p. 292.60. Ibid., pp. 287-297.61. Ibid., pp. 289-291.62. Ibid., p. 291.63. Ibid., p. 294.64. Jim Roy, Soul Shapers: A Better Plan for Parents and

Educators (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Publ.Assn., 2005).

65. From George R. Knight, Philosophy and Education:An Introduction in Christian Perspective, 4th ed., p. 247. Re-produced by permission.

66. A. S. De Jong, “The Discipline of the ChristianSchool,” in Cornelius Jaarsma, ed. Fundamentals in ChristianEducation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 397.

67. Roger Dudley, Why Teenagers Reject Religion andWhat to Do About It (Washington, D.C.: Review and HeraldPubl. Assn., 1978), p. 89.

68. Harro Van Brummelen, Walking With God in the Class-room (Burlington, Ontario: Welch Publishing, 1988), p. 34.

69. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Educating for Responsible Ac-tion (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 15, 14.

70. Donald Oppewal, Biblical Knowing and Teaching.Calvin College Monograph Series (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Calvin College, 1985), pp. 13-17.

71. White, Education, p. 83.72. See, e.g., White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and

Students, pp. 259-263; __________, Fundamentals of Chris-tian Education, pp. 47-49; 236-241; __________, Education,pp. 73-83.

73. Roy B. Zuck, Teaching as Jesus Taught (GrandRapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), p. 158. See also Zuck’s Teach-



ing as Paul Taught (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998).74. J. M. Price, Jesus the Teacher (Nashville: The Sunday

School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1946), p. 101.75. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 236.76. John A. Marquis, Learning to Teach From the Master

Teacher (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1916), p. 29.77. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students,

p. 261.78. Ibid., p. 180.79. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 237.80. J. Crosby Chapman and George S. Counts, Principles

of Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1924), pp. 601, 602.81. See George S. Counts, The Soviet Challenge to Amer-

ica (New York: John Day, 1931), pp. 66, 67.82. White, Education, p. 271.83. E. A. Sutherland, Studies in Christian Education

(Leominster, Mass.: The Eusey Press, n. d.), p. 72.84. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 192.


85. Ibid.86. See George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The De-

velopment of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, Md.:Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2000); _____________, TheApocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism, rev. ed.(Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn, 2009).

87. See George R. Knight, “The Dynamics of EducationalExpansion: A Lesson From Adventist History,” The Journal ofAdventist Education 52:4 (April/May 1990), pp.13-19, 44, 45.

88. See Knight, Apocalyptic Vision, for an extendedtreatment of that threat.

89. George R. Knight, “Adventist Education and theApocalyptic Vision” (two parts), The Journal of AdventistEducation 69:4 (April/May 2007), pp. 4-10; 69:5 (Summer2007), pp. 4-9.

90. Shane Anderson, How to Kill Adventist Education(and How to Give It a Fighting Chance!) (Hagerstown, Md.:Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2009), pp. 22, 56; cf. p. 30.


omwocha

Rectangle

omwocha

Rectangle

omwocha

Text Box

ALC Course Delivery Adam Fenner [email protected].

omwocha

Text Box

Receiving Challenge Exam Credit Union Conference Certification Registrar

omwocha

Text Box

Ordering Tests Lolita Davidson Campbell [email protected] 583-3661

omwocha

Text Box

Kindly contact the following individuals to receive more information:

omwocha

Line

omwocha

Text Box

If you have outstanding tests that need to be completed, or would like to receive credit for continuing education courses taken through JAE, then materials must be ordered by August 31, 2015, and submitted by November 1, 2015. No orders or submissions will be accepted after these dates.

omwocha

Text Box

Continuing Education courses will no longer be available through The Journal of Adventist Education® (JAE). New continuing education courses for Adventist educators will now be delivered by the Adventist Learning Community (ALC), www.adventistlearningcommunity.com, in partnership with the North American Division Office of Education (NADOE).

omwocha

Text Box

2015 UPDATE

omwocha

Line

omwocha

Text Box

CONTINUING EDUCATION EXAMINATIONS

P A R T I I I - CIRCLEcircle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae201073013823.pdf · 2015. 9. 27. ·...

Documents

Transcript of P A R T I I I - CIRCLEcircle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae201073013823.pdf · 2015. 9. 27. ·...