Wholism 201

Last week I mentioned God's rulership over all. The "King’s domain" [Christ's King-dom] knows no bounds or limitations. Christ is Lord of all, all the time, everywhere at once, both in Heaven and on Earth. But does this mean that everything that happens on Earth is His will? 

When I hear Christians say “God is in control,” I have to ask myself what is meant by this. Do we mean to say God causes everything to happen that happens? Is everything that happens, God’s will? I can’t read my Bible and draw this conclusion.  

 

So how do I reconcile the all-encompassing rule of God with the “stuff” that happens on Earth? This works for me: God is in absolute control, but He does not control all things absolutely.

What does this mean? It means God has the power and authority to do whatever He pleases, whenever He pleases, including causing whatever He wants to have happen on Planet Earth happen. He can make donkeys talk, if He wants. But I do not see the God of the Bible controlling all things absolutely all the time. People can and do violate His will. People can and do thumb their noses at His authority. We all disregard His Word at times, and we have all violated His commands. That’s what sin is about.

Yet, whether people acknowledge His authority or not, this does not change the fact that Christ is Lord of all, all the time, everywhere. We don’t make Christ Lord, He is Lord! It’s our place to acknowledge His authority, accept and embrace it.

Yet even if people don’t embrace it, Christ’s authority still applies to everyone, all the time. His authority is omnipresent and non-selective. It applies as much to personal life as to public life. It applies as much to what goes on in local churches as it does to what goes on in local civil governments. It applies as much to what goes on in families as it does to what goes on at workplaces. It applies to non-Christians as much as Christians. ("Thou shalt not steal," is not for believers only.) 

The rule of God applies to the whole of human activity. There is no public/private split, no church/state difference, and no Christian/non-Christian distinction when it comes to the jurisdiction of Christ's authority. His jurisdiction covers the whole gamut.

That’s wholism 201.

Wholism 103

Last week, I said Satan doesn’t own Planet Earth or anything in it. But I wonder if some readers may have said to themselves, “Satan may not own it, but he sure does run it!”

Does he?

In John 14:30, Jesus refered to Satan as “the ruler of this world.” But what “world” was Christ talking about? Was He saying Satan is the ruler of Planet Earth?

The English word “world,” translated from the Greek, kosmos, has four meanings in Scripture. They are: 1) the physical realm of creation, as in John 1:10: “He [Christ] was in the world (kosmos), and the world (kosmos) was made through him …;” 2) populated regions, as in Romans 1:8: “…your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world (kosmos);” 3) the human race in general, as in John 3:16: “God so loved the world (kosmos), that he gave his only begotten Son…”

But kosmos ("world") may also mean 4) a system of thought and behavior that is contrary to the will and ways of God, as in I John 2:15: “Do not love the world (kosmos) or the things of the world (kosmos). If anyone loves the world (kosmos), the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world (kosmos)—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world (kosmos).”

Here John defines “the world” as a system of thought and action governed by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. It is this “world” we are not to love. It is this “world” Satan rules. This is not the world God "so loved" in John 3:16!

I humbly submit that Satan is not the ruler of Planet Earth. Yes, he is the ruler of the “world system" that is contrary to the will and ways of God, and he acts like he owns the place. But there is only one Lord.

The Devil is the “prince of the power of the air.” But this prince is no King! The universe has but one King, and that is Christ Jesus, Lord of all. There’s not room on the throne for two.

Christ’s authority rests over the whole of heaven and the whole of earth, all at once. Right now.

That’s Wholism 103.

Wholism 102

Another awesome aspect of wholism is that Christ, the Creator-Sustainer of the universe, owns the whole kit 'n caboodle. Always did, always will. It's all His.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. That's because if we get the issue of “ownership” wrong, it makes a huge difference in the way we view everything! My friend and mentor, Albert Greene, now with the Lord, touched on the problem when he wrote, “There is a subtle derailment which often occurs in Christian thought at the point of the Fall. We tend to think that when man sinned, God simply relinquished the whole creation as a botched job and left Satan to do what he wanted with it. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Did he say, “subtle derailment?” Al was never prone to overstating. The fact is, it’s a huge derailment!

The world and all it contains is as much God’s stuff after the Fall as it was before the Fall. The Fall did not change God’s ownership status. He not only made it in the beginning and holds it together as you read this post, but He owns it all, and this has enormous ramifications for human beings. When we mow the lawn, it’s His grass we’re cutting. When we pound a nail, it’s His metal we’re pounding. When we examine a drop of water under a microscope, it’s His stuff we're looking at.

In Psalm 50:10-12 God says, “For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and all it contains.” (NASB) Even after the Fall, the earth and all it contains remains His. The whole lot of it! That’s wholism 102.

This is what makes the Fall such a tragic event. It is His creation that is fallen, and it remains His in its fallen condition. It is critically important to understand that the earth and all it contains does not belong to Satan. “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world and those who dwell in it.” (Psalm 24:1) Although the devil may act like he owns the place, he simply does not. Never did, never will. None of it is his.

For more of Albert Greene, click here, and here.

Wholism 101

There is no better place to start a discussion about wholism than Hebrews 1:3, which tells us Christ is “...upholding all things by the word of His power.” All things!

Creation [a much better word than “nature”] originally came into being through the premeditated act of God. Yet the very fact that all of creation continues to exist today is as much of a wonder as its first appearance. Creation is not a one-time act of the past, but a continuing deed of the present. It is not as though God made it all at some point in the past, and now it functions quite well all on its own, running according to so-called “natural” laws. Look out your window once again! The present is as magnificent as the beginning, the very continuing existence of the universe as awesome as its first appearance. And Christ perpetuates the whole show as we gaze and gawk.

If it were not for the continuing supernatural action of the creation-sustaining God holding it all together, “nature” would be no more. In terms of how most people think about the “natural” and the “supernatural,” the “natural” has come to mean “the normal operation of a self-governing system,” while the “supernatural” refers to “the interference of God in that system.” Yet Colossians 1:16-17 tells us: “For by Him [Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist [or, ‘hold together’].”

Sometimes the Lord does things in an out-of-the-ordinary way, such as raising Lazarus from the dead. We call this a “miracle.” But we must not draw the faulty conclusion that God is present in the miracle but stands on the sidelines during the ordinary times. He is equally present in both.

The fact that God created all matter in the beginning is just as awesome as the fact He is right now holding it all together. Right now! He is sustaining our very breath. Apart from His continuing to hold the very atoms of our bodies together, we would fall in a heap on the floor and disappear. In fact, we would disappear before we hit the floor. Both we and the floor are wholely dependent on Him.

That's wholism 101. 

Gone From The Public Square

Biblical wholism is the “breath of life” for academics, sports, arts, and autoshop. Without this soul, formal education has little meaning beyond "a gateway to a good-paying job." And that notion is fading! So rather than expound upon why dualism is bad, I’d like to focus on why wholism is good, and show how truly meaningful education is dependent upon Biblical wholism for its very lifeblood.  

As mentioned last week, the late Alan Bloom, a non-Christian University of Chicago professor, noted that the United States was once unified by a “vision for the order of the whole of things” which came from the “common culture” of the Bible. But this “vision for the order of the whole of things” is now gone from the public square, being confined to the four walls of certain churches, and private lives of certain individuals.

Why does this matter? Because we are all affected by its loss. People these days are shooting bystanders in shopping malls, strangers in movie theaters, and little kids in classrooms. Retirement savings have vanished because of toxic securities and shadowy dealings by graduates from Ivy League schools. On top of this, we live in a deeply divided nation. Could this possibly be related to the loss of a Biblical "vision for the order of the whole of things?”

There I go again, talking about the negative effects of dualism! But before I proceed with “why wholism is good," let me say a word about its spelling.  

Last week I received an e-mail from someone informing me that the word wholistic is not spelled with a “w.” In the past, I was informed of this by my computer spellchecker, too. But I fixed this pesky problem by adding wholistic to my computer’s dictionary. Now it is spelled with a “w.”

Blame for its coining goes to Darrow Miller and Bob Moffitt co-founders of Disciple Nations Alliance. In Miller’s book, LifeWork, he states: “Wholism speaks of the whole of God’s Word to the whole man in the whole world. We [Miller and Moffitt] recognize that wholism is a coined word. But we prefer it to the word more commonly used, holism, which has been co-opted by the New Age movement…”

I'm following suit. We'll continue next week with why wholism is good. 

The Bane Of The Wane

When it comes to the debilitating effects of Dewey's "Common Faith" on young minds, I am not as concerned about atheism as I am about dualism, and the resultant normalization of the Sacred-Secular Divide [SSD] throughout society, including the Church.

To one degree or another we’ve all been infected by SSD. But whether a person realizes he or she has been infected is quite another matter, and this is what makes SSD so difficult to cure. Whereas atheism is easy to spot, dualism is more subtle, like an unrealized parasite in the gut. While atheism is viewed as an enemy, dualism is our bedfellow, as common as a twenty-dollar bill. Kids don’t just catch it in public schools. They catch it in church, and in unwatchful Christian schools.

Let me present my case, starting with the disappearance of wholism. I'm starting here because to understand the bane of dualism, we must understand the wane of wholism.   

Allan Bloom, who was not a Christian, wrote a book in the ‘80s, titled, The Closing of the American Mind.  Bloom taught at Cornell University, the University of Toronto, Yale University, and the University of Chicago. In his book, Bloom observed the following:

"In the United States, practically speaking, the Bible was the only common culture, one that united the simple and the sophisticated, rich and poor, young and old, and—as the very model for a vision of the order of the whole of things, as well as the key to the rest of Western art, the greatest works of which were in one way or another responsive to the Bible—provided access to the seriousness of books. With its gradual and inevitable disappearance, the very idea of such a total book is disappearing. And fathers and mothers have lost the idea that the highest aspiration they might have for their children is for them to be wise—as priests, prophets or philosophers are wise. Specialized competence and success are all that they can imagine. Contrary to what is commonly thought, without the book even the idea of the whole is lost.”

I would be hard pressed to come up with one paragraph that explains the problem better than this one. We have lost the very idea of the whole of things. With the wane of the "total book," [the Bible] the idea of the whole is lost.

Dualism is the bane of the wane.

Thirteen Year Dose

If we think American schools are religiously neutral, we must think again. Of course, if the public schools were overtly indoctrinating children in Buddhism, or Native American Animism, many parents would hit the ceiling. (Maybe.) But when it comes to the indoctrination of children in Dewey's "Common Faith," Christian parents are curiously passive. 

Apparently enough Christians think secularism is "neutral," and if kids can learn to read and write well enough to enter a university, they'll give secularized education a pass. Apparently enough feel that if teachers don't stand up in front of a class and say, "The Bible is a fairy tale," things are tolerable. Yet when teachers don't connect the Word of God seriously to a single academic subject over a period of thirteen to seventeen years, are those teachers really being "neutral?" [Consider last week's post.]

My biggest concern about young Christians being indoctrinated into secularism via education is not that they will become atheists. My biggest concern is that they will become dualists.  

A Christian dualist is one who reads the Bible, prays, goes to Church on Sunday, maybe teaches Sunday School, and yet doesn't make any substantive connections between God's Word and what goes on in the workplace for 40-60 hours Monday through Friday at Boeing, because he or she thinks "faith" is a personal matter, and the workplace is "public," and therefore "secular." The Christian dualist doesn't mix the Word with Boeing because he or she never mixed the Word with math, science or economics over thirteen to seventeen years in school, so why mix it now with Boeing? Building airplanes is a "secular" endeavor, isn't it?

Really? Where exactly is this "secular" world, anyway? [See Where Is The "Secular" World?]

In short: after a thirteen year dose of secularism (even via the best Christian teachers who would never speak badly of the Bible), a young Christian is most likely to come out the other end as a dyed-in-the-wool dualist, thinking the Bible is relevant to Church life and personal life, but not relevant to business, law, politics, medicine, or driving a bus, because it wasn't relevant to language arts, history, social studies or sports.

Many Christian parents who attended secularized schools themselves don't see a problem with their children attending them, because they "turned out OK." But my question is: Did they?

Did we?

Which Faith Will Be Allowed To Mix?

Back to education...

The realization that Dewey’s “Common Faith” has taken prominence over the former Judeo-Christian consensus during the past eighty years in this country has given rise to no small sense of alarm. The church is [slowly] coming to the sober realization that America’s biblical foundations for law, civil government, and education have been replaced. Eighty years of public secularization through education has been enormously successful.  

The matter of not mixing faith with public schools needs to be carefully reexamined. The question is not whether faith will be allowed to mix with schools, but which faith will be allowed to mix? The fact is, faith is being mixed with public education daily. It’s just a different faith than the one previously mixed with schools for 200 years.

If it is not allowable to teach kids that the world was created by God, and yet it is allowable to teach them that the world came into being on its own, is it not equally a faith position to teach that God did not create the world as it is to teach that He did? If it is a faith statement to say, “God created the world,” is it not also a faith statement to say, in so many words or lack thereof,  “God did not create the world"? Are not both statements of faith?

To teach kids that God did not create the world can be done effectively without actually saying those specific words. A teacher does not have to stand in front of a class of students and tell them “the Bible is irrelevant to the discussion” in order to effectively communicate that it is.

If it is not allowable to teach kids that God has spoken to humanity through the Bible, and that His Word is the universal standard for morality, and yet it is allowable to teach that moral values are "clarified" by society, based on human notion and desire, then is it not an equally religious position to teach that God’s Word is not the standard as it is to teach that it is? Are not both positions faith positions? If it is a religious statement to say, “God's Word is the standard for morality,” is it not also a religious statement to say, in so many words or lack thereof, “God's Word is not the standard for morality?"

That's been the message for decades.

Forward With Anticipaiton To 2013

Christmas time is family time for the Overmans. Although this is not a Christmas photo, it is our extended family. This picture was taken last July on our deck, as we gathered following Mom's memorial service. She passed through the veil to glory at the age of 87. My father is in the front row, sixth from the right. He will be 90 in the coming year, and he is doing very well. My awesome wife of forty-two years, Kathy, is fourth from the right, also in the front row, with her head peering between two of our ten grandchildren. Our four adult children, and spouses, are sprinkled throughout the photo, along with my siblings, their spouses and children, numerous cousins, and other relatives. I'm standing in the back row, on the far right, with only half of my head in the frame. (The best half, mind you.)

2012 was an extraordinary year, in every respect. We thank the Lord for his continued faithfulness in guiding and directing our steps, and we look forward with anticipation to 2013, because Jesus is Lord of all─today.
 

The Greatest Christmas Gift

Just hours after last week's post went out, twenty 6 and 7-year-old children, along with seven adults, were brutally murdered as another school day began at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, a little, idyllic American town, referred to this past week in the media as "Anytown, USA." Our prayers go out to each family touched by this cruel and senseless act. The screenshot (above) of the school's webpage is from Sunday, 12/16/12.

For a variety of reasons, America feels darker to me this year than last. But as John the Apostle wrote, "The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it." (John 1:5, NLT) This is what Christmas is about: the Light of Christ Incarnate shining in darkness. At the Christmas season we mark the occasion when the Word become flesh and dwelt among us. Think about this. The Light shining in the very darkest of darkness, far as the curse is found.

Far as the curse is found.

[This post first appeared on December 25, 2009.]

One of my favorite carols is Joy To The World. The words are by Issac Watts, based on Psalm 98: "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all the earth; make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise. Let the floods clap their hands; let the hills be joyful together before the Lord; for He cometh to judge the earth, with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity."

Some say Joy To The World is not about the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. They say it is about His second coming, not His first. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_to_the_World.)

The joy that is sung about, then, is a future joy that will occur when Christ returns, to “make the nations prove the glories of His righteousness,” in that full expression of His Kingdom (yet-to-come).

But for me, the song also makes sense as a celebration of the first coming of Christ in Bethlehem. While I’m looking forward to that full and perfect expression of Christ’s Kingdom-yet-to-come, I’m also celebrating the Kingdom-already-here. Jesus is Lord of all. Today! Not just in the future, but in this present moment (Acts 10:36-37)!

The Lord is come! No, the Kingdom of God isn't fully recognized yet, or perfectly functional right now. This will happen when Christ comes the second time. But the domain over which Christ is King (that is, His King-domain) presently includes both Heaven and Earth.

This is the greatest Christmas gift: Christ the King has come to Earth “to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found, far as the curse is found.” Right now. Our Savior has come to make His blessings flow through people who are reconciled to God, and reconciling all things around them to Him, including the things of Earth. That's the big idea behind Christ's coming in the first place. See Col. 1:16-20, and To Reconcile Not Only People But Things.

So, no more let thorns infest the ground. By God's amazing grace, let's put our work gloves on, go to our workplaces after the Christmas holiday, both at home and in the community, to pull up bramble bushes─and plant redwood trees.

Joy to the Earth! the Savior reigns; Let men their songs employ; While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains, Repeat the sounding joy, Repeat the sounding joy, Repeat, repeat the sounding joy!

Far as the curse is found.

A Hard Thing To Bury

Does it take faith to believe that "Nature" is all that is, or was, or ever shall be? Does it take faith to believe morality is determined by human beings alone, with no regard for any higher moral order than ourselves? Does it take faith to believe all "truth" is equally "true," and all cultures are equally "good?" Does it rain in Seattle?

As mentioned last week, secularism is a faith. A powerful faith. And, as John Dewey argued, a religious faith. It is a faith with its own dogmas, held resolutely in the minds of everyday folk you walk past in the grocery store, who don't even know they are religious. Such as the dogma that one person’s concept of “truth” is just as valid as another person’s concept of “truth;” the dogma that says “tolerance” is the highest virtue a person can possess (tolerance of any view except an intolerant one, that is); and the dogma of radical whateverism which declares there is no such thing as “bad” culture, just “different” culture.  

As mentioned last week, Dewey's book, A Common Faith, written in 1934, ends with a call to action: "It remains to make it explicit and militant." Looking back over seventy-nine years since, and having lived in Seattle for sixty-three of them, it is clear to me that Dewey's task no longer "remains." 

You see, along the way, some people took Dewey seriously. Such as John J. Dunphy, who wrote in The Humanist magazine back in January, 1983: “The battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith…These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”  

Militant enough?

This hardly seems like Christmas season stuff. For welcomed relief, and a powerful reminder that the so-called "rotting corpse of Christianity" is a hard thing to bury, watch this inspiring clip: http://youtu.be/SXh7JR9oKVE.

There Are Only Two Kinds Of People

“Never before in history has mankind been so much of two minds, so divided into two camps, as it is today.”

Sounds like America of 2012. Actually it's the opening sentence from A Common Faith, written in 1934 by John Dewey.  

The division Dewey referred to was the rift between people “who think the advance of culture and science has completely discredited the supernatural,” and those who believe in a Supernatural Being, and “an immortality that is beyond the power of nature.” 

Dewey embraced materialism, which claims matter is all that is, was, or ever shall be. So when we die, we’re done. Period. Moral order is not prescribed from above, but created from among us. Purpose is what humans alone determine it to be.  

Yet in A Common Faith, Dewey argues materialists are religious. He says you don’t have to believe in the supernatural to be religious. He signed the first Humanist Manifesto, which declares, "the time has passed for theism," and, "we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate," but Dewey was a religious devotee, committed to a different faith: a non-theistic, non-supernatualistic faith.

Dewey admitted that understanding how a non-supernaturalist can be religious is difficult for many. So he distinguished between a religious “outlook,” and particular religions. He argued it isn’t necessary to subscribe to a supernaturalist religion to have a truly religious outlook, to be a  religious person, or to partake in religious "functions" of non-supernaturalist faith. He's right!

Dewey further said, "Faith in the continued disclosing of truth through directed cooperative human endeavor is more religious in quality than is any faith in a completed revelation.” Dewey was committed to the outworking of social pragmatism through public schools, a "directed cooperative human endeavor" that continually "disclosed truth," apart from "a completed revelation." Good-bye Comenius.

Dewey called his religious faith "the common faith of mankind," and ends his book with, "It remains to make it explicit and militant."

Dewey’s “case for faith” brings up sticky questions with respect to the practice of faith in public schools. While it is possible to separate church from public school, is it possible to separate faith from public school?

G.K. Chesterton said, "In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it."

I'll expand on this next. 

The Biggest Dirty Little Secret Of All

Caution: Information I will be sharing with you over the next few weeks could change the way you look at education forever. Continue reading at your own risk.

In his Aims of Education Address, Professor John Mearsheimer called the University of Chicago "a remarkably amoral institution."

Did the Professor say "amoral?"

I've got a little surprise for him. Perhaps I should say, a "dirty little secret." Shhhh....There has never been, nor will there ever be, an "amoral" institution, or an "amoral" approach to any subject. Even math. From civil engineering, to business, to art, to psychology, to biology, to culinary arts, one thing is ever-present at school, running in the background, as certain as the ticking of time.

Even if there are no clocks on any walls, time still ticks in the background of every lecture, whether it is pointed out by the instructor or not. (Most teachers don't point it out.) It's this way with morality and ethics. If no teacher specifically mentions the word "morality" in class, and no teacher specifically talks about "ethics," the fact is, morality is an integral part of every subject, and this is true from the first day of kindergarten through the last day of graduate school.

I'm sure Comenius and Webster understood this. But somewhere along the way, this elementary truth got swept into the deep postmodern waters in which we are now adrift. Some of the most intelligent educators today, such as Professor Mearsheimer, talk as though they haven't really thought through this point. But surely they have. Yet...maybe...they haven't. And if they haven't thought through it, then how many parents have? How many third grade teachers? And how many high school principals?

Mearscheimer was propagating the great presumption of secularism which says it is possible to be "neutral" about morality, and that secularized education is "amoral." But it simply can't be. That's because─and now for the the biggest dirty little secret of all─secularism (the accepted and celebrated foundation of American education today), is a faith, and every secularist is a person of faith, even the most rabid atheist.

Have I lost my mind? I don't think so. In fact, with the help of people like Albert Greene, Francis Schaeffer and John Dewey, I think I've found my mind. But I'll let you decide.

Did I say John Dewey? Yes! He helped me see something important. So for my first witness, I call to the stand none other than the Father of Progressive Education himself, the author of A Common Faith.

Lean in. Please.

The President Asks Americans to Engage in Religious Activity

As I continue my series on education, I am mindful of followers of Christ who teach in state schools. Eric Buehrer (who graduated from the same high school I did) is president of an organization I respect and recommend, called Gateways To Better Education. His organization focuses on helping state school teachers to understand the full legal freedom they have to teach about the influence of Christianity in our history [yes, some states require it!], to educate students about biblical themes in great literature, etc., and to take advantage of teachable moments that afford fitting opportunities to bring up "religious" subjects for class discussion.

One such teachable moment occurred this week when our President issued the annual Thanksgiving Proclamation to the nation. Eric highlighted this in an e-mail I received from him on Wednesday, and I asked Eric if I could pass his comments on to my readers. Thank you, Eric, for permission to do so! Keep up the great work.       

The President asks Americans to Engage in Religious Activity

Yesterday, the President issued his annual Thanksgiving Proclamation calling the nation to thank God for His blessings. No matter what our politics may be, it is important that we highlight the Proclamation to our children and our students as an example of our nation's recognition of being "one nation under God."

The president begins by explaining that it is about "recounting the joys and blessings of the past year." This is an important statement because the majority of people (including teachers) mistakenly think that Thanksgiving is a nostalgic remembrance of the Pilgrims of long ago.

The President explains, "This day is a time to take stock of the fortune we have known and the kindnesses we have shared, grateful for the God-given bounty that enriches our lives." 

In his second paragraph, the President gives a brief overview of its history. He also highlights George Washington's prayer "to our Creator" as well as Lincoln's proclamation.

In his fourth paragraph, the President calls upon the nation to "spend this day by lifting up those we love, mindful of the grace bestowed upon us by God and by all who have made our lives richer with their presence."

I recommend you print out the proclamation and read it to your family. It is important that we not only remind ourselves what God has done for us individually, but that we live in a country that officially does this as well. It is part of being "one nation under God."

If you are a teacher, you can incorporate the President's proclamation in a post-Thanksgiving class discussion. Ask students specifically what they did for Thanksgiving Day. Then, ask them if they did what the President asked them to do. When they reply that they were not aware that the President asked them to do anything, give them a copy of his proclamation, read it aloud, and discuss it. This is a teachable moment -- a time to discuss a few of the following topics:

1. What it means to be "one nation under God."
2. The Bill of Rights and freedom of religious expression
3. America's Judeo-Christian heritage
4. The often-misunderstood phrase "separation of church and state"
5. What it means to end the proclamation "in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve" (our calendar dating)

Download the President's Thanksgiving Proclamation. 

Yours for Creating a Better Future for Our Children,

 

Eric Buehrer

President

Gateways To Better Education

The Sights Have Been Removed From The Barrel

It takes three things to hit a target: 1) a front sight, 2) a rear sight, and 3) a trained mind to keep 1 and 2 aligned. What soldier removes the sights from the barrel?

For Comenius and Webster, education was a pursuit of truth. But not the kind of "truth-pursuit" I found on the streets of Seattle. The Comenius-Webster pursuit of truth involved using God's Word and God's works like two sights on a rifle. Those two sights, aligned by the reasoned eye of a person supporting the barrel, provided an intelligent way to hit targets. But this is an old-fashioned view of truth, and an outmoded view of education.

No doubt the motto Truth for Christ and the Church was put on Harvard's crest to keep the aim of education in sight. To say Harvard got disoriented along the way is an understatement. Not only has the target been changed, but the sights have been removed from the barrel. Yet not only at Harvard.  

The University of Chicago has a tradition of giving freshmen a lecture called, "Aims of Education." When Professor John Mearsheimer gave the Aims of Education Address to the Class of 2001, he stated: "Not only is there a powerful imperative at Chicago to stay away from teaching the truth [that is, the truth], but the University also makes little effort to provide you with moral guidance. Indeed, it is a remarkably amoral institution. I would say the same thing, by the way, about all other major colleges and universities in this country."

Mearsheimer told the freshmen, gathered in a chapel built in the nineteenth century, that the building's benefactor "cared so much about his chapel because he was deeply interested in promoting Christian values at Chicago." A statement declaring that a building which represents religion "ought to be the central and dominant feature of the university" is etched in stone on the back wall. [Etching in stone is a good idea.]

Professor Mearsheimer informed the students that the first president of the University, William Harper, required undergraduates to attend chapel services once a week. But went on to say, "The importance of religion at elite educational institutions like Chicago diminished greatly in the first decades of the twentieth century," and added:  "Moreover, I would bet that you will take few classes here at Chicago where you discuss ethics or morality in any detail, mainly because those kind of courses do not exist."

For the full speech, click here. Read the section called, "The Non-aims of Education at Chicago." For Mearsheimer's response to criticism of his speech, click here.

What Then, Mr. Webster?

Noah Webster (1758-1843), the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," said education was "useless without the Bible." His American Dictionary of 1828 contained more biblical definitions than any other reference volume of his day (and probably since). In the Preface, Webster wrote: "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

In the March, 1788, issue of The American Magazine, Webster wrote: "...the education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. Education, in a great measure, forms the moral characters of men, and morals are the basis of government." He went on to say: "...it is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system for preserving morals, than to correct, by penal statutes, the ill effects of a bad system."

Webster referred to the Bible as "that book which the benevolent Creator has furnished for the express purpose of guiding human reason in the path of safety, and the only book which can remedy, or essentially mitigate, the evils of a licentious world." [Harry R. Warfel, ed., Letter of Noah Webster, pp. 453-57].

In a letter to David McClure, written on October 25, 1836, Webster declared: "Any system of education...which limits instruction to the arts and sciences, and rejects the aids of religion in forming the character of citizens, is essentially defective."

[The photo above, by Billy Hathorn, is of a painting in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., used here under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.]

Speaking of veritas, what exactly is "truth," anyway?

The answer provided by Professors William James of Harvard and John Dewey of Columbia could not be further removed from that of Martin Luther, John Comenius and Noah Webster. For the modern Professors, truth is what works. For you, for society, for the system…it just “depends.”

I suspect most Americans in Webster’s day could not have conceived of the darwinized notion that truth evolves. Some of them, when pressed, would have said truth is “self evident.” For the eighteenth-century mind, schooled in the biblio-centric education of Comenius and company, it would, of course, have seemed that way. But today, what is “self evident” to some is not “self evident” to others.

Webster said "morals are the basis of government." Now here’s an interesting question for you: what happens to a nation when morality becomes “what works for me?”  What then, Mr. Webster?

What then? Then you see nearly half of a class of 279 students cheating at Harvard. Then you see accountants cooking the books at a multi-billion-dollar corporation in Texas. Then you see traders on Wall Street designing financial derivatives that the head of the Federal Reserve Board says he could not comprehend. Then you see 5.2 billion dollars in U.S. tax refund fraud last year. Not to mention no-fault divorce and state-sanctioned sodomy. You see exactly what we see today.

Truth? By what measurement? The measurement of unbridled reason? Or is reason to be submitted to a higher authority: the Book of God's Word, and the book of God's work?   

A couple of years ago, I did some man-and-woman-on-the-street interviews on a sunny afternoon in Seattle, asking a very basic question: “What is right and wrong, and how do you determine the difference?” I found no shortage of people ready and willing to answer on camera, giving written permission to share their comments with you and others.

In well over an hour of nearly back-to-back interviews, I did not find a single individual who made reference to the Bible, or to the God of the Bible. Not one. I invite you to witness what I did. And then spend a moment in prayer for the post-Christian West. Click here.

What do you think? Is there any room left for the idea that morality is based on objective, universal truths that remain the same, yesterday, today and forever? Weigh in below.

Where Enduring Revolutions Start

John Dewey (1859-1952) was the Father of American Progressive Education. As a world-class philosopher, and head of Teacher’s College at Columbia University, Dewey made a lasting impact on American educators and American schools. 

Dewey’s ideas were influenced by William James (1842-1910), who championed the darwinized notion that truth is always in a state of flux. Truth, according to James, “happens" to an idea, ever evolving and ever in process. Truth adapts to fit its environment. Truth which was once fitting for a particular social environment may not be fitting today. Only the fittest truth survives, and if it doesn’t fit, it is no longer truth.

"Objective," "absolute," "universal," or "total" truth, for James, did not exist. Truth was what works. This way of thinking, called pragmatism, is America’s distinctive (and destructive) contribution to Western thought. It was a radical departure from Luther, Comenius and Webster.

According to social pragmatism, society itself becomes the shaper of what is truly fitting for the times in which one lives. Right and wrong, true and false, good and evil are relative to the current aspirations of the group. As culture changes, values change. As values change, culture changes, and so the evolutionary process of progressive truth goes on and on.

Dewey sought to merge social pragmatism with American education, and helped the process along through “progressive education." The public school is the natural place for social formation to take place. What better place to shape truth? Change requires a certain suppleness of mind, and young minds lend themselves better to the process.

Elementary school. That's where enduring revolutions start.
 
Progressive education resists unchanging dogmas, such as those taught by the Bible. The very word "dogma" has a negative connotation. The idea of absolute, unchanging, universal truth is shunned, and people who hold such outmoded ideas are "narrow-minded." Puritanical.

Education for the progressive educator is a process by which a person becomes "open-minded," guided by independent human reason, unencumbered by Revelation. People clarify their own values. The "imposition" of values by The Book, is o-p-p-r-e-s-s-i-v-e.

In My Pedagogic Creed, Dewey refers to the teacher as "the prophet of the true God and the usherer of the true kingdom of God." I'll share more about Dewey's "God" and "kingdom" later.

What recently took place among 125 classmates who cheated on the exam at Harvard began in third grade.

John Dewey in 1902. That's not a Bible in his hands. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd wager he's holding a volume of William James' Principles of Psychology.
[Photo public domain]

William James spent the bulk of his career teaching at Harvard. A nice-looking man! His concept of Veritas, however, would not have passed muster with Harvard's first board. But Professor James posed no problem for the Unitarians who took over the school in 1805. [Photo public domain]

The Road To Dis-Integration

A recent case of mass cheating, described as “unprecedented in anyone’s living memory,” made national news last August. It involved nearly half of 279 students in a class titled, ironically, “Introduction to Congress.” Which school? Guess.  (Click here.)


This is the Harvard crest as it appears today. Compare it with the earlier Harvard crest I posted last week. (Scroll down if your memory is fuzzy.) Note that the lower book ("reason") is no longer facing downward, "submitted" to the God's special and general revelation, the Bible and creation. Notice, also, the wide, upward arrow pointing reason toward God's Word and works has been removed from the new crest. One has to wonder why they kept the book of God's Word and the book of God's works on the shield at all, but it's hard to remove them from stone, where they appear around the Harvard campus to this day. Most students, I'm sure, have no idea what the three books symbolize anyway. Notice, also, that the Latin words in the original motto, For Christ and the Church, have been eliminated. The revised Harvard motto has been reduced to simply Veritas (Truth).

The photo above is from Wikipedia, and reprinted by fair use law. The Wikipedia article is worth reading, as it does a good job of relating the history of Harvard's secularization (click here). The article notes that "Charles W. Eliot, president 1869–1909 [40 years, no less!], eliminated the favored position of Christianity from the curriculum while opening it to student self-direction." Yes indeed. The recent cheating scandal attests to that. 

For more on the Harvard crest, see  
David Kirkpatrick's blog, Travels in Transmedia...
 (Thank you, Joan Nieman, for bringing Kirkpatrick to my attention.)

Harvard’s truncated motto, Veritas, (Truth), rings hollow today. Did the founders of Harvard envision this?   

What route did Harvard take from Pansophia to cheating-en-mass? How, and when, was the Bible dropped from its essential role as the provider of light for every academic subject, and the hub of academic integration? What happened to the Panshopic movement, and the three books on Harvard's crest?

A recent master's thesis by James A. Hopson includes a succinct history of Christian education in America that provides clues. Hopson relates how a reaction to the strictness of Puritan Calvinism led to a rise of liberal Unitarianism (which denied the deity of Christ). This, combined with a spiritual decline of the Congregational Church, a rise of "German pantheism," and Protestant infighting, led to a separation of the Bible from academics.

Harvard was taken over by Unitarians. Hopson quotes Blumenfeld: “The takeover of Harvard in 1805 by the Unitarians is probably the most important intellectual event in American educational history. Harvard became the ‘Unitarian Vatican.’ It was, in effect, the beginning of the long journey to the secular humanist world view that now dominates American culture.”

In 1837, Horace Mann, also a Unitarian, became Secretary of Education for Massachusetts. Through Mann, the first public (tax-supported) schools were established. At that time, Protestants were warring over differences of doctrine taught in schools, and Mann's solution was to have schools just retain Bible reading for its moral benefit. Thus the road to dis-integration began.     

But the transition to complete dis-integration took many years. McGuffey Readers, a “God-conscious and God-centered” series by a Presbyterian minister, continued to be used in public schools into the twentieth century. 120 million copies were sold between 1836 and 1920. The public schools were also seen by the Protestant community as a way of “neutralizing the influx of Catholic immigrants,” through the advancement of Protestantism.

But by the 1930s, a radically different vision for education emerged.

I'll pick up from here next week. 

 

The Three Essential Books

John Amos Comenius was not alone in his revolutionary biblio-centric approach to life and learning. Just as Calvin and Knox enlarged and developed the practical ramifications of the Reformation Luther had initiated, men like Alexander Richardson, William Ames, and John Alsted, along with Comenius (a student of Alsted), developed their sweeping ideas in a 17th Century movement historians call the Pansophic [or Encyclopædic] movement. 

Pansophism was indeed a movement. A movement that lasted for about 150 years, and provided a curriculum driver for early Harvard and Yale. Dr. David H. Scott calls the movement Integrationism, and he refers to the men who developed it as Integrationists. [Dr. Scott is an authority on the Puritan curriculum known as technologia, which was used at Harvard and Yale. This, along with Jonathan Edwards, was the focus of his Ph. D. dissertation at the University of Notre Dame, published in 2003, From Boston to the Baltic: New England encyclopedics and the Hartlib Circle. If you're not inclined to read dissertations, I recommend Dr. Scott's shorter article, "A Vision of  Veritas: What Christian Scholarship Can Learn from the Puritans' 'Technology' of Integrating Truth." Click here.]

Comenius's educational aim was to harmonize three "books" which he saw as essential for pansophic education: 1) the book of God's Word [the "special" Revelation of the Bible], 2) the book of God's works [the "general" revelation of creation], and 3) the book of reason [or logic].

While there is no direct evidence in the minutes of the meeting on December 27, 1643, in which the overseers of Harvard discussed the crest of the school, Dr. Scott sites other evidence supporting the belief that the three books in the Harvard crest are the three "books" Comenius saw as essential to pansophic learning: the Bible, creation, and enlightened reason. These were the three essential books required for authentic education.

This drawing of the original Harvard crest and motto appears on the website of the Harvard Graduate Christian Community, a student organization related to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and affiliated with the Harvard chaplains.
The following comment accompanies this drawing: "The motto of the University adopted in 1692 was 'Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae' which translated from Latin means 'Truth for Christ and the Church.' This phrase was embedded on a shield...and can be found on many buildings around campus including the Widener library, Memorial Church, and various dorms in Harvard Yard. Interestingly, the top two books on the shield are face up while the bottom book is face down. This symbolizes the limits of reason, and the need for God's revelation."
[To visit this website, go to http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~gsascf/] 



 The three books can also be seen embedded around Yale, including the example below, where the books appear above a passageway near a courtyard on campus, below the window and to the right:



Below is a close-up of the three books, with "reason" submitted to God's Word and God's works: