Jonathan Langdon

Of most importance, I believe in a loving, powerful God who has revealed himself throughout history by His creation, but even more so through the events and histories recorded in the Bible. This history reveals that God created the whole universe in a perfect manner, including mankind in order to enjoy a loving relationship with us. However, the parents of all of humanity, Adam and Eve, desired to do things their own way, not God’s way. Consequently, their disobedience led to the great fall of mankind and nothing has been the same since that time when sin and death entered the world. At creation we were made in the image of God, but from the fall we have inherited a natural tendency to sin. By our own choice and sin, we became a lost race with a great chasm between us and God.

 

However hopeless and dark the situation was, God never gave up on His beloved creation and has been shaping history in such a way to save it from the dreadful consequences of sin and disobedience. The culmination of all history came when a man named Jesus of Nazareth was born in Israel, lived an amazing life, died on a cross, and came back to life after being buried for a time. The eyewitness accounts of those who lived with him and observed his death and resurrection have been recorded for us. Their accounts reveal the teaching, true nature, and purpose of this Man. This Jesus of Nazareth was more than mere man, but also God Himself. His purpose was to save the world from sin and its dreadful consequences by sacrificing his own life on a cross. What is more, he has blazed a path to a restored relationship with God by overcoming death himself. It is through Jesus Christ that the immense chasm between a broken humanity and a loving Father can be bridged. Those who put their faith and trust in Jesus will find a hope that transforms this earthly life and latches onto an eternal life beyond the grave.

 

My convictions are not based mere ideas and rationalization, but on the facts of Jesus’ life. I depend on His Word and Spirit to faithfully guide me in a confusing and broken world. God is constantly at work today in people’s hearts, drawing them to him; and as an adopted son of God, I am privileged to join in this vision. As a chef’s main desire is to present a satisfying meal to hungry patrons, it is my chief desire to present the eternally satisfying Bread of Life, Jesus Christ, to a hungry world. He sustains my life just as simple wheat bread sustains the body, and I want to share this Bread with others who are hungry.

 

Just as Jesus is the Bread of Life, we can compare human nature to that of bread and its composition. There has been much discussion and debate in regards to human nature: do humans consist of two separable natures - body and soul or do they consist of one unified being? I think the use of an analogy can help think through this issue, and comparing humans to bread and the body/soul to flour/water could be a suitable illustration.

 

However, first I would like to discuss some ideas that Gordon Spykman brings up in Reformational Theology (1992). Spykman’s chapter on “The Whole Man: Body/Soul” is very interesting in his argument for a holist view of man. One part that I found very interesting is how a holist view of man makes the traducianism/creationism debate needless because both sides assume a dualist view of man (p. 241). However, despite the number of excellent points that Spykman brings up, I don’t feel that he acknowledges even the remote idea of any kind of distinction between the body and soul. I understand that our body and soul are inextricably intertwined, and yet I also see how there are distinctions between those parts. Bread consists of essentially flour and water, and if one or the other were missing, it could not be called bread. Also as you change the amount of water in bread, the flour is affected in its ability to hold together. In the same way, we need both soul/spirit and a body in order for us to be called human, and these two parts are so strongly connected that when something happens to the body, the soul is similarly affected and when the soul is afflicted, the body is affected as well. The flour/water mixture and body/soul of humans are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from one another.

 

Another article by Doornbos, Groenhout, and Hotz (2005) highlights how it is important to see the personhood and image of God in humans. People are not just physiological bundles of responses to the impulses in life. They are beings with an emotional, social, moral, and spiritual dimension. And people should not be treated as numbers or cogs in a machine, but as persons who are valued by a God who calls them by name. As a teacher I will have the responsibility of seeing my students with the full dignity of bearing God’s image even when the fallen and rebellious nature rears its head in defiance.

 

Something else that is an important assumption of mine that I should discuss is my belief in what constitutes knowledge. Whether learning a lesson in the classroom or learning a recipe in the kitchen, we are dealing with knowledge based activities. I think a good beginning point is Plato’s definition of knowledge: knowledge is “justified true beliefs.” I think this definition works well on a lot of levels, and it is much better than the vague ideas I had beforehand. It is certain that for something to be knowledge you must believe it to be true and valid. If Jimmy’s mom says that vitamins are good for the body, but doesn’t believe it herself, then we can’t say that she has knowledge of that. Her statement may be true, but she doesn’t really believe it. Yet, at the same time, something that a person considers to be knowledge must be true (that is, based in truth). Thinking that the Earth is flat is not knowledge, even if you believe it with your whole heart. Now, the third qualification of Plato (that of justified true beliefs) is something I struggle with a little. For if a piece of knowledge is true, then why do I need to justify it? From an absolute point of view (perhaps God’s point of view), there is no need for justification, but from a human point of view it is needed because that is how we decide whether something is true or not. Ever since sin has entered this world, we have been confused as to what is right and true, and for us to be convinced that something is true or not, that idea or thought needs to be justified.

 

So how do we decide what is true so we can base our knowledge on it? There is a verse in Proverbs that says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” At first this was hard for me to grasp, but I now understand this verse as realizing that all truth is based on the character of God. It is by His Personhood that we know what truth is, and consequently gain knowledge based on that truth. Even so, someone might argue that scientists gain knowledge of this universe regardless of whether they believe in God. True, but the knowledge they gain is based on God’s character evident in creation. They may find a number of laws that govern the universe, but those are laws based in God’s faithfulness, goodness, and orderliness. I think this makes much sense when we consider Jesus’ statement, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Truth (and consequently knowledge) is based in the character of God. That is why the farther we stray from God, the more ignorant and senseless we become.

 

Even beyond knowledge being justified true beliefs, I believe knowledge is relational, experiential, and reflective. Groome (1980) points out that the Hebrew verb for “know,” yada, means more than a mere intellectual knowing, but something that involves experience and your heart. In fact yada is also used in the sense of lovemaking - when you know your spouse. In the kitchen, if you want to learn how to cook, you do not simply look at cookbooks all day long, you need to spend time actually doing the cooking. In the same way, learning in schools needs to be active and engaging for the students. In the kitchen, we need someone to show us how to cook at least the basics, and then perhaps down the road we can independently follow a cookbook. But even through the cookbook, we interact with the person who wrote it. Consequently knowledge is relational at its foundation, and that is why relationships are so important in the classroom. We also take particular notice in the results of our cooking, that is, we reflect on how well the food was cooked so that we might learn from our mistakes. In the same way, for knowledge to be formed, not only do we need experience, but we also must reflect on experience.

 

While one needs knowledge to cook in the kitchen, one also needs an idea of the structure and order that runs a kitchen. There are many different ways of running a kitchen just as there are many different ways of running a government. The structure of society and government affects how a teacher can operate in his or her classroom just as the setup of the kitchen affects how the chef can prepare the meal.

 

Amitai Etzioni (1996) presents how a communitarian view compares to a liberal individualist and social conservative view. Etzioni’s article helps differentiate between political stances, and it’s enlightening to see how there is not really a right side and a left side in a one-dimensional sense, but rather there are two dimensions: a social sense and an economic sense. In an economic sense, the right side (laissez-faire conservatives) wants as little government involvement in the economy as possible while the left side (social liberals) desires more government involvement in the economy (such as welfare). The other dimension, the social dimension, is concerned about the balance between individual autonomy and social order. Social conservatives emphasize heavily on social order while liberal individualists emphasize individual freedom (the ACLU is a sharp example of liberal individualists). Etzioni’s chapter on “The Elements of a Good Society” focuses on the social side of the spectrum, while discussing a third way as well – the communitarian way. I like a lot of what communitarian ideas have to offer – especially the normative means of enforcement and the balance between individual freedom and social order. Yet, on the spectrum of social order and individual autonomy, I would lean towards a more social conservative viewpoint. I shudder at the thought of the permissive society that the ACLU fights for. In regards to education, I would tend to agree more with the communitarian concept of education – that of using education as a normative mean to shape society rather the popular idea of education as a means for economic success in the global market.

 

However, influential politicians continue to frame this idea as the main purpose of education - that education can empower the nation to compete in the global market. In fact, President Clinton’s main concern with education in 1992 was whether “our children [are] learning what they need to know to compete in the global economy.” Purpel and McLaurin (2004), amongst many, rise to confront some of the basic assumptions and concepts of education here in the U.S. like that which President Clinton suggested. Purpel and McLaurin criticize how there has been a stress on competition, self-advancement, and technical skills in education. They state that education in the U.S. has been in general “narrow in scope, technical in nature, and naïve in quality” (p. 21). They lament the loss of purpose in education as a way to gain understanding of the world and ourselves while finding joy and meaning in life along the way. Coming back to the kitchen analogy, cooking isn’t merely done in order to fill our stomachs and satisfy our hungry. We cook to please the senses and to bring joy into the home, and just as there is more than a practical purpose to cooking, there is more than an economic use for education.

 

That brings us to the greatest question in regards to education: what should be the purpose of education? Kieran Egan in The Educated Mind (1997) points out that in western culture we generally seek 3 major purposes in education: socialization, intellectual cultivation (from Plato), and individual development (from Rousseau). Egan then makes the argument that at certain points, these three ideas are going to diverge on an issue and they will not be compatible. Thus, teachers in western culture are left to decipher how to merge these three ideas together while maintaining their sanity. Each of these three views cannot be followed in a strict sense - at some point one is going to have to decide which view will predominate over the other.

 

Each of the three stated purposes of education has something desirable, and though it may be difficult, I think each one should be included to a certain extent. So while there may be discrepancies between the pure forms of each idea, I disagree with the idea that they are fully incompatible. I think it is possible to pick and choose from each idea.

 

Now with which idea would I side with when it comes to the discrepancies that Egan mentions? Socialization and Plato come into conflict when one decides to foster social conformity or intellectual skepticism. Here I would like to argue that a balance between skepticism and acceptance of social order is healthy. The hard part is learning when to be skeptical and when to be content with things as they are. Rousseau and Plato come into conflict when one has to decide whether curriculum or relevance/development is more important in schooling. I would lean towards Plato more on this point and acknowledge that there are particular things that students need to learn and we shouldn’t let students completely navigate their own study. There can be moments where inquiry and discovery can be used, but the overall structure should be maintained according to what needs to be taught. Students might find the Rousseau route lets them follow their own desires, but one of the things that they need to learn is self-discipline and that life involves persevering through things that aren’t easy. Finally, Socialization and Rousseau come into conflict when we decide what should shape a child’s development - nature or society. At this point I would side with the socialization perspective. I think Lord of the Flies truly does depict what would happen if we let children follow their own nature - evil, chaos, and much wrong would result. Children mainly need two things as they grow up: love and discipline. They need to be disciplined to teach them the proper way of life and love is needed for them to be able to grow and live life to its fullest.

 

Even if one does not think socialization should not be the purpose of education, I would argue that socialization is always at work in the educational process. Educators are involved in the process of influencing students to think in particular ways, whether it is solving an algebraic equation or to know how to recognize the rhyme scheme of Romeo and Juliet. In fact, the educators that are so adamant about an education free from religious dogma socialize their students into their own secular way of thinking. In the kitchen, when an apprentice learns from the expert chef, the chef passes on certain preferences and styles onto the apprentice. Whether the chef is deliberate or ignorant in this process, it is irrelevant, for regardless of his or her conscientiousness of the process, socialization of the apprentice still occurs.

 

In education, we claim to certain purposes for why we educate our young. Similarly in the kitchen the chef has his or her own purpose in cooking, but it is also important to note the type of food that he or she cooks. In education, we are concerned with the curriculum and the content that is emphasized in schools.

 

In an article by Gormas, Koole, and Vryhof, they discuss how reconciliation needs to have more substance in secondary Christian schools. They seem to be reacting to a number of faults in the current education climate in the United States such as the emphasis to create test takers, specialists in each discipline, and docile employees; and they rightly do so. They suggest that the way to reconciliation is through transformation and what should be stressed in schools should be vulnerability (rather than the need to control), integration (rather than fragmentation), interdependency (rather than competition), and freedom (rather than high-stakes testing). They are keen in recognizing some deficiencies in current education practice, but should we really go to the extremes that they suggest and replace one extreme with the other? While I recognize that we could certainly move in the direction that they are suggesting, I would argue that a balance is needed between the two extremes.

 

It is interesting to note some of the particularities of the basic American school structure: school divisions (grades) are based on age, classrooms usually are around the size of thirty students, curriculum is often determined by what universities and colleges deem as important, and class periods are usually around fifty minutes long. I think much of the progression of the structure of schools makes sense when considering the different factors and changes with which society has dealt. As Tyack and Cuban (1995) point out, a number of different systems have been tried like the Dalton Plan, Eight-year study, or High Schools of Tomorrow, but the “basic grammar of schooling”, as they put it, has basically remained constant over the decades. Part of the reason is that colleges, universities, and parents still push for Carnegie units with set times and subjects. There is much to fight in order to change the current structure. While I do recognize that there are failings in the current system, I do not know of a better system that has fewer failings than this one, so I am willing to continue to work with the current structure. I want to focus my time and efforts on how to be a better teacher rather than spending time looking at the alternatives.

 

In school curriculum, we often tend to overemphasize subjects like math, English, and science, but Martin (1994) argues that such an emphasis is close-minded and arbitrary. She would argue that home economics should be mandatory for every student so that “development of each person as a member of a home and family” may occur. Generally I think Americans believe that virtues and morals for home life is something taught at home or at church. Yet Martin wishes that it be included in secular education in order to teach the 3Cs of care, concern, and connection. However, can these like other morals be explicitly taught and rammed down student’s throats? Do we not learn instead through models and examples just as Paul urged the first century church leader in Crete, Titus: “In everything set them an example by doing what is good?” Not everything we need to learn in life needs to be nor should be placed in the school curriculum. Richard Nixon once gave a speech stating that we cannot legislate morality, nor can we make a nation great in such a way, but it is through religion that a nation’s greatness can be established. We need to turn to God to change hearts and minds, and we cannot depend on education or government to do so.

 

Even David Purpel feels a tinge of hopelessness in regards to the state of education, for he acknowledges “human endeavors as being fated to involve heroic and virtuous struggles that ultimately end in failure.” Purpel senses that even if we put our whole selves into making a better education system, we are bound to fail and our efforts will result in nothing. Yet, Purpel still goes on to say that “we must not be daunted by the magnitude of the task” despite seemingly unavoidable failure. I think Purpel has struck a grand truth in that human effort to change the world results in little. I think that education is important, but I might differ from Purpel in that I do not believe that education is the key to changing our nation. Simply trying harder and using more effort will amount to nothing. If great change is to come about, it must come by way of God and his power, and if we are willing, we can be his tools to do so.

 

In the kitchen, there is great opportunity to bring forth delicious and delightful food and likewise in education there are boundless opportunities for creativity and life-giving lessons. The style and quality of the food depend on the chef and the type of kitchen in which he or she cooks. In the same manner, I hope to be a teacher that offers students quality, worthwhile material as well as opportunities to cook up their own creative ideas.

 

 

References

 

Doornbos, M. M., Groenhout, R. E., & Hotz, K. G. (2005). Transforming care: A christian vision of nursing practice. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

 

Etzioni, A. (1996). The new golden rule. Basic Books.

 

Martin, J. R. (1994). The radical future of gender enrichment. Teachers College Press.

 

Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. New York, NY: State University Of New York Press.

 

Purpel, D. E., & McLaurin, W. M. (2004). Reflections on the moral & spiritual crisis in education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

 

Spykman, G. J. (1992). Reformational theology: A new paradigm for doing dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.