Theology

 Who says what is right and wrong?

https://appliedbehavioralstrategies.wordpress.com/category/funny/

Moral philosophy, also known as “social ethics,” seeks answers to the question “What is right and wrong?” Supposed synonymous words (morals, values, ethics, or beliefs) often assume that correct behavior arises from community codes of conduct. The Christian viewpoint is quite distinctive. Christian views of social ethics necessarily distinguish “values” and “morals” from “ethics” and “beliefs.” What some consider to be “normal” (values) or “acceptable” (morals) in any given culture may indeed be right or wrong in another culture. By contrast, “ethics” implies “should” and “ought” which in turn assumes a standard outside the community. “Beliefs” for the Christian embeds sociology within theology.

Only three possible standards or sources exist for how one should live in any culture:

(1) individual desire,

(2) community design, or

(3) transcendent declaration.

Individuals, separated from the ethical framework or social fellowship of others exercise their autonomy to the betterment or detriment of others; the standards for “betterment” and “detriment” left to one’s own choices. Communities may have what others consider to beneficent, altruistic motives but also depend on what is acceptable for the group even when harm could come to other groups because of the first group’s actions. Further complications arise from tyrannical or totalitarian leadership within a community where one or a few set standards demanding compliance through fear from the whole community. Transcendent standards, most often originating from holy books or prophetic utterance, can be manipulated by human interpreters for the interpreter’s own interests. However, without a supernatural code by which a society commits itself, autonomous human ethics reign supreme.

In a fallen world, the best hope for community compliance is commitment to a cogent code given from a personal, eternal, Triune creator, the Hebrew-Christian God of the Bible. Social ethics, from a Hebraic-Christian point of view, demands the following:

(1) A righteous, revelatory standard founded in the Bible (Ps 119; 1 Thess 4:1-12),

(2) a transformed spirit, affecting the being, the interiority of the believer (Ps 19:13-14; Rom 8:5-9),

(3) Christian leaders who submit themselves to the standard in word, attitude, and deed (2 Kgs 23:24-25; 1 Tim 3; Titus 1),

(4) Christian leaders who prompt the Christian church toward the practice of Christian ethics (Ps 15; Heb 10:24; 13:1-7, 17),

(5) Christians who practice Christian ethics in the society where they live (Deut 4:5-8; Titus 2:1-10); and

(6) social ethics in lived society are influenced by Christian social ethics (Jer 29:1-7; 1 Tim 1:8-11).

The results of Christian social ethics in society begin with Old Testament teaching and should always produce (1) equality of commitment to all people being made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27), (2) equitable rewards which benefit all people (Ps 107), (3) standards of justice applied to all (Is 58-59), and (4) a sense that preparation for the next life depends on how this life is lived (Ps 73).

Practices

The practice of beneficence toward others is what it means to practice one’s Christian faith (Titus 3:1, 8, 14). The church often took care of its own (Acts 4:32-37). There was no limitation on belief: all should be cared for (Gal 6:9-10). There was no limitation on time: doing good can seem to be an unending task and must be encouraged (Gal 6:9; 2 Thess 3:13). There was no limitation on effort: continued service is the expectation (John 9:4; 1 Cor 15.58; Gal 6:9; 2 Thess 3:13). There was no limitation on result: doing good was not in vain (1 Co 4:5; 15:58; 2 Jn 8). The Christian does not do good for their salvation but because of their salvation (Eph 2:8-10; 4:24; Col 1:10). Works of service to others originate first from God (John 15:5-6; Phil 1:11; Col 1:6). 

Doing good, however, can be misconstrued. Some substitute good works for salvation from sin which can only be given by God through His grace (Gal 1:15; 2:16; 3:11-14). Some do good out of anticipation of earthly reward, whether through gain or glory (Acts 8:18-19; Phil 1:17-19). Still others do good out of a sincere faith but do not realize its negative impact on the populace served. Books such as When Helping Hurts warn that material needs cannot be separated from immaterial beliefs. The Spiritual Danger of Doing Good petitions believers that their good works may be susceptible to imperceptible motivations and unintended consequences. The essence of social ethics, like everything else in life, can fall prey to a disillusionment or disconnection from the original purpose for the believer: to glorify God in all things (Ps 115:1; Col 3:23), acknowledging Him as the source of any competence (2 Co 3:5; 4:5). Loving one’s neighbor because one loves God is the essence of what it means to be a Christian (Gal 5:14; c.f. Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; John 13:34).

Books such as Stephen Mansfield’s In Search of God and Guinness demonstrate the personal commitment and communal impact a thoroughly Christian mindset can have on social ethics in business practices which immediately impact individuals and institutions. Kingdom Calling, by Amy L. Sherman, gives a myriad of examples from every conceivable vocation of how the practice of Christian social ethics produces justice and brings mercy to any neighborhood. Inspirational stories, as identified in books like William Bennett’s The Book of Virtues, can motivate toward goodness. But good examples cannot be simply applied from the outside without internal change, a key tenet of Christian ethics (Eph 4:20-24; Col 3:12-15). 

Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity shows the historic impact of Christian social ethics on the Roman culture. Before his own conversion to the gospel, Stark researched how the believing community in Rome impacted the city. The practice of ministering physical care through epidemics made the gospel of Jesus attractive. In books that followed, Stark showed how Christian thinking-being-living had a direct impact on social good. The earliest Christian apologists—Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch—defended Christians to Roman persecutors with this dictum: Christians provided Rome with the best citizens, because Christians contributed to the social good of the empire. Christian ethics were built on Christian belief that right and wrong have a transcendent source in the Hebraic-Christian God, Yahweh, revealed in His Son, Jesus.

“Social Ethics”© is an essay in the 5-volume Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States through Rowman & Littlefield, all rights reserved.

Good News for all who preach it.

Speaking biblical truth in words people can understand is the work of Christian preaching.

Preaching is generally referred to as proclamation, often an explanation, from God’s Word, the Christian book, the Bible. Preaching in Scripture most often refers to telling the Good News—known as “the gospel”—to those who are not believers. Public statements (Matt 3:1; Mark 1:14; 2 Tim 4:2), announcing Christ and His work (Acts 5:42; Rom 10:15; 1 Co 1:17), are both the emphasis of Jesus’ ministry (Matt 4:23; Luke 4:44) and the responsibility of Jesus-followers to declare the same (Acts 28:31; 2 Tim 4:2). 

Compatible descriptions of Jesus’ speaking include “preaching” and “teaching” (Mark 1:14, 15, 21, 28, 39). Epistolary New Testament references can include both terms as seemingly interchangeable (Col 1:28), however, the activities are regularly separated (Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11; 4:2-4). Differences between words used for “preaching” and “teaching” in the early church would tend to emphasize evangelism in the first (Rom 1:15-16), training in the second (Col 2:6-7). “Teaching” is a spiritual gift (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:8-11, 28; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Pet 4:11) which is to expound the Word of God (Acts 15:35; 18:11, 24-28; Rom 2:21; 15:4; Col 3:16; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 5:12). “Preaching” has been expanded to mean what normally takes place in the company of Christians; an explanation and application of the Bible from the pulpit or from behind a lectern. Christian assemblies often refer to “preaching” meaning “teaching” in a Sunday morning context (Acts 20:20, 27).

The word homiletics—conversation or discourse with an assembled group—is frequently used for the study and practice of preaching. Crafting communication in a sermon (literally, a stringing together of words) for a local congregation is normally the work of a pastor, described in Scripture as a shepherd (1 Pet 5:1-4). Leading the flock by teaching God’s Word is crucial for Christian maturity (Jn 21; Acts 20). False teaching or preaching is also warned against (Rom 16:17-18).  Approaches to preaching may be as varied as those who preach.

Methods and examples abound, accessible through print and digital formats. But style comes from belief and belief arises from acceptance. If preaching has its roots in the Christian Church, the reason for preaching (Jesus) will be equal to the acceptance of Christian belief (Jesus is Lord and Savior). Biblical preaching depends on Christian belief, coming from God’s revelation through prophets and apostles to humans, through the Scriptures (Eph 2:20; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2, 3; 2 Tim 2:2; 3:10; 2 Pet 3:2).

Crucial components to Christian preaching depend upon writing, reading, proclaiming, hearing, and changing.

(1) Writing is the content. Words are only important if Truth is important and Truth is communicated with words through a book. God’s Word ends in Revelation by referencing “words” and “book” six and seven times respectively (Rev 22:7-10, 18-19).

(2) Reading is the command. The Written Word and The Living Word teach that words are the soil of belief (Jn 1:1-18). Well chosen reading, then, is the fertilizer of a Hebraic-Christian leadership mindset (Deut 17:18-20; Josh 1.8; Ps 119:103; Acts 17:11; 20:18-21, 27) for the soil of those who listen to preaching (Luke 8:4-18).

(3) Proclaiming is the compulsion. The preacher cannot contain the inner passion (Jer 20.9), the irresistible compulsion of The Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:4-11, 28, 29; 2 Tim 1:14) to tell others about Christ (1 Co 9:16).

(4) Hearing is the communication. A key word in Scripture, the Hebrew word “hear” comprises a threefold concept: receiving information through the ears, listening to the words which leads to understanding, and obeying the declaration by acting on its truth (1 Sam 15:22-23; Jas 1:19-25).

(5) Changing is the commitment. God declares His Word will not return void (Isa 55:10-11), instilling a transformed spirit within the individual (Rom 2:21), infusing a renovated spirit within countries (Jonah 3), inspiring an amazed spirit within groups (Luke 2:18, 47), illumining a reformed spirit within the preacher (Rom 10:14; Titus 1:3), and influencing a committed spirit within the listener (Isa 45:22; Matt 11:13; 13:9; Mark 4:9).

“How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom 10:14) is the question answered by those who preach. The audience then bears responsibility once the preaching is heard (Matt 11:20-24).

Preaching through the power of the Holy Spirit makes listeners accountable to the message (1 Cor 2:6-13).

“Preaching”  © is one of 22 articles included in the History of Christianity in the United States (Rowman & Littlefield) by Dr. Mark Eckel.

References & Resources

Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005; Kaiser, Walter C. Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide for the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003; Martin Lloyd-Jones, David. Preaching & Preachers, 40^th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012; Mathewson, Steven D. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002; Motyer, Alec. Preaching? Simple Teaching on Simply Preaching. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2013; Robinson, Haddon. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 3^rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014; Stanley, Andy. Communicating for A Change: Seven Keys to Irresistible Communication. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah, 2006.

Hummingbirds were the passion of Emily Dickenson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Mark Twain. 

Christopher Benfey’s book A Summer of Hummingbirds traces the interconnectivity of these writers to their interpretation of the beating wings: the fleeting nature of human life.  All had left behind their Christian roots seeing that “the old pieties no longer sufficed” opting instead for a patchwork quilt of personalized faith.  Dickinson concluded “human life, all life, is a route of evanescence.”[1] She developed a view of existence centered in “birds, flowers, the shifting quality of light and of mind.”  Roger Lundin’s review points out the problem of those fluttering wings: “the loss of belief left them riddled with phantom pain.”[2]

Amputees confess the ache of loss to be real.  The mind actually creates a physical illusion to compensate for the missing appendage.[3] But doctors observe that while time may dissipate the sense of loss, it is the focus on something else that eventually eliminates phantom pain.  Creating a trick, a “virtual reality” for the person who has lost a limb, may enhance a patient’s recovery.[4] The illusion of loss is exactly the problem faced by people who have the original taken away.

I use only Coffee-Mate® in my Dunkin’ Donuts® coffee: the packaging adds the large statement “the original.”  Ask anyone who knows me well.  I cannot stand substitute coffee creamer.  One of the true things about aging is the idea that when we have the option, we are no longer interested in knock-offs.  We want what we want; time is short!  While situations arise where my beloved Coffee-Mate® is inaccessible, my taste buds know something is amiss.   Substitution seeks to overcome, but can never replace, the original.

Genesis has had its share of imitators.  Some will declare that since Genesis history was written later than Egyptian or Mesopotamian mythology, that Genesis is the “copy.”  While “literary similarities” exist, “borrowing” does not have to be the explanation.[5] For over 30 years while teaching the book of Genesis from high school through master’s level students I have used a “compare and contrast” approach to learning.  Just before going off to college, for instance, seniors were asked to find similarities and differences between pagan mythologies of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and North American Raven versus the Genesis record. I still have their brilliant summaries in my files.  In an honest comparison, high school seniors discovered this truth: distinction is more important that similarity.

And for 20 years I have diagrammed an alternative approach on the white board.   The original Truth recorded in Genesis 1-2 was distorted by sin because of Genesis 3 creating warped imitations throughout human history.  One nation chiseling their distortion of the original 500 years prior to the actual record does not call Genesis into question.  The differences are so pronounced, Genesis stands alone.

The pagan view is plainly magical—committed to ritual, attempting to placate unknown, unseen, unpleasant forces.  Mythological tales are written in a poetic fashion, creating memorable stories, giving a token sense of human origins.  But these tales are nowhere close to reliable.  John Walton says it best, “Though its permutations vary from time to time and culture to culture, the paganism in each of us is inclined to fabricate a manageable deity.[6] The fantastic nature of the gods and their situations fit better in a graphic novel (read, “comic book”).  Cartoons, though they reflect aspects of supernatural and natural worlds, are only hopeful of something other.

The biblical view is plainly mystical—the text is committed to an “other” sense of wonder and mystery.  The creation account is striking.  Genesis 1:1-2:3 is unique.  A “matter-of-fact” style dictates a form of composition little known in the ancient world: historiography.  Historiography reported events that occurred in space and time.  Deuteronomy 4 captures the point:

For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or was ever heard of. . . . Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath, there is no other.[7]

Yahweh had warned against the rise of imitators.[8] This should come as no surprise since “correspondence is founded on metaphor . . . and that metaphor is the basis of all language and thought, as it is of all religion . . . Deep within each of us, the need for correspondence remains . . . the need to perceive ourselves as belonging to the cosmos.”[9]

Myth in the ancient world was a substitute for the local community concerning their gods and life’s origin.  For most people groups, their creation stories gave direction for their priests to perform their ritual, magical ceremonies to maintain proper relations with the gods.  Evil was co-equal and co-eternal with their gods.  Time was cyclical; “Fate” controlled life.

Against the culture of the day, Genesis declares God is God alone.  He personally plans and oversees all events (Providence).  He controls all of life (Sovereignty).  He gives direction to human time (History).  He is unchanging giving certainty and security in the world (Immutable).  He directs all of life toward His purposes (Teleology).

When I read about Dickinson, Stowe, and Twain this week I felt a deep sadness.  My emotions are the same anytime I hear of folks yearning for truth, painful in their loss, settling for falsehood.  In contrast to the views of the writers mentioned above, hummingbirds are a result of God’s direct creation.  I suspect that if this little creature could speak she would say, “Listen to my wings; their sound is in praise of my Creator!”[10] So it is no surprise to hear Scripture so often compare those refusing to believe as “having no eyes to see, nor ears to hear.”[11] Amputation of The Truth, is simply rebellion against The Truth.[12]

Mystery shrouds human understanding, stands as a marker of Heaven, subjects accepted norms to One outside earth, and speaks best through Jesus who is “the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16). [Originally written / posted at WarpandWoof.org 2 September 2009 ]

---

[1] Evanescence means disappearing, vanishing, or vaporous.

[2] As quoted by Roger Lundin in his review “Old Pieties No Longer Sufficed,” Books & Culture Sept/Oct 2009, 16-18.

[3] V. S. Ramachandran and S. Blakeslee. 1998. Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind (William Marrow).

[4] https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6146136.stm

[5] Among the many books that could be mentioned in promotion of such a view, consider R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Hendrickson, 2004); Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP, 2001); K. A. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament, (Eerdmans, 2006).

[6] John H. Walton. 2001. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. (Zondervan): 55.

[7] Deuteronomy 4:32, 39 (ESV).

[8] Deuteronomy 4:15-19.

[9] “This is why something inside us responds spontaneously to metaphor, the heart of all poetry and, finally, of all language and all meaning.” Thomas Cahill. 1998. The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. (Doubleday): 49, emphasis mine.

[10] Indeed all creation is commanded to give praise to its Creator: Isaiah 44:23; 49:13.

[11] For example, Deuteronomy 29:4; Jeremiah 5:21-24; Ezekiel 12:2; Mark 8:17-18; Romans 11:8.

[12] “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

Abstract: Universal truths found throughout the disciplines need to be taught through a biblical mindset. All realms, all studies should be subordinated under the authority of Scripture. These human spheres include such studies as word and image, time and place, history and culture, arts and communication, law and ethics, philosophy and literature, economics and politics, as well as mathematics and science. Biblical thinking will instruct the interiority of thought needed to build the infrastructure of ideas for future Christian leaders. Biblical thinking includes directed and discovered interdisciplinary implications for history, creativity, assessment, collaboration, coherence, and legacy.

 

Introduction

John C. Polkinghorne sets a distinguished interdisciplinary example as a theologian-scientist. Stressing the unity of knowledge as non-negotiable for the believer, Polkinghorne evangelizes with his words

The true university’s quest for interdisciplinary truth may be properly called “Christian,” not because of some imperialist attempt at takeover by the churches, but because those who seek the truth without reserve, whether they know it or not, are ultimately searching for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ream, 53).

Polkinghorne pulls no punches—Jesus is the center of the learning universe. Education is not simply an access to knowledge but a development of wisdom. Reason and purpose are central to Polkinghorne’s argument, “Why?” being the most important question anyone can ask. Beauty in math gives example for the claims of interdisciplinary studies. “The indispensability of theology” (Ream, 61-64) gives the basis for properly interpreting all knowledge accessible because of God’s transcendent unity of all knowledge. “God is the ground of all reality, the integrating factor that ties together the multidimensional richness of human experience” (64). Philip Ryken, Wheaton College president, establishes the foundation for integration.

In conducting this exploration we will exercise our theological imagination. But we will also make deductions that are grounded in the prophecies of Scripture, governed by the principles of sound doctrine, and guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit as we gather together the strands of revelation that lead toward engagement in the liberal arts as an eternal enterprise (Davis, Jeffry, 295).

The intersection-unification of academic disciplines is dependent upon supernatural revelation for grounding and guidance. Biblical theology has its roots in supernatural revelation coming from The Eternal Godhead, The Eternal Word.

Biblical Theology

Reason and intelligence are effective, God-given instruments which cannot be dismissed (1 Kings 4:29-34; 2 Chron 2:12), though their use must be tempered with humility (1 Cor 8:1, 2; James 3:13). Reflection of God’s omniscience—He knows everything—is imprinted within people having been made in God’s image (cf. Ps 94:10, 11). Logic, rhetoric, and wisdom are patterns of thought resident within God’s nature mirrored in human nature (1 Sam 2:3; Col 2:2, 3). Humans certainly do not know all things (Ecc 7:23-25; Jer 33:3) nor do we always use our knowledge with discernment, wisdom and virtue (2 Peter 1:5-9). We must be careful, then, of the pride of knowledge and the snobbery of anti-intellectualism (Acts 18:24-28; 1 Cor 8:1).

Genesis three explains the ruination of God’s intention for knowledge described in Genesis one and two. According to innumerable Scriptural sources (Rom 1:18, 25, 28; 8:6, 7; Eph 4:17-19; 1 Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:15, 16) sin has adversely affected human intellectual capabilities. The corrective for people’s cerebral incapacitation is a renewal of the mind by the saving grace of Jesus (Rom 8:6, 7; 12:2; Eph 4:20-24; Col 1:21-23; 3:10; Heb 8:10; 10:16). While sin continues to distort truth, we must always be on the lookout for the kernel of verity, and allow the chaff of error to be blown away. In order to practice the oft-repeated phrase, “All truth is God’s truth,” we must reorder our thinking biblically.

How does this change in thinking occur? Both Ephesians 4:17-5:2 and Colossians 3:1-17 provide a pattern to follow. Depraved minds (Eph 4:17-19) are reformed by the grace of God at salvation (4:20-24; Col 3:9-10) and should be in a constant state of renewed thinking (Col 3:1, 2). Christians, more than anyone else, should be regularly, biblically exercising their mental faculties. Only in this way, can we lead lives that are semper reformata, reformans, reformanda—“always reformed, reforming, and to be reformed.”

Faith which is reforming has a factual base. It is objective, reliable belief based on factual confirmation, certainty shown by incontrovertible data (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3; John 20:8; Heb 11:1). Some mistakenly believe faith is a “blind leap” or a “well-I-can’t-prove-it-but-I-know-it’s-true” mentality. Paul maintained that God offered “proof to all men” by raising Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:31). Christians believe in someone who did something—a real person who came in real space and time, died a real, physical death, and literally, historically rose again from the grave—Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

So “debated,” “argued,” “proved,” “disputed,” “explained,” persuaded,” and “confuted” are words of reason used to plead the Christian faith (cf. Acts 9:22, 29; 17:2-4; 18:4, 19, 28; 19:8, 9; 24:25). While the Christian faith is reasonable it is also something beyond reason. Clearly the work of The Holy Spirit is necessary to change individual’s thinking from a human-centered to a God-centered perspective (Romans 8:5-9; 1 Cor 2:10-16). The supernatural process of transformation is outside the scope of ordinary experience (Rom 11:33-36).

But pagan neighbors would see the difference in a nation given the supernatural revelation of God (Deut 4:5-8). Indeed, Yahweh expected his people would lead others to The Truth (Ex 19:5, 6). Solomon, who gained his knowledge from God honored His Maker by using his mind for the study of everything from botany to zoology (1 Kings 4:29-34). Unbelievers came from the great empires of the day to sit at Solomon’s feet and benefit from his wisdom (4:34; 10:24). As a result of his erudite witness some even came to faith commitment in Israel’s God (1 Kings 10:1-9).

Ecclesiastes, written by Solomon later in life, provides an examination and refutation of all worldviews apart from that of The Self-Revealing God. The apostles’ concern for Christian to know what and why they believe (1 Peter 3:15) is premised on the wisdom of Proverbs 22:17-21,

“Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise, and apply your mind to my knowledge; for it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, that they may be ready on your lips. So that your trust may be in the LORD, I have taught you today, even you. Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, to make you know the certainty of the words of truth that you may correctly answer to him who sent you?”

Reason, rightly controlled by Revelation, is a biblical perspective. Personal (i.e., the individual) and societal (i.e., the group) reason is normally the premise for Western thinking. Oriental influence suggests that there is a revelation based upon human tradition most often referred to as a myth or story. Some in The West suggest that reason interprets revelation. In each of the three cases human intellect in some way interprets thinking. Biblical thinking mandates that transcendent (i.e., outside) truth be the arbiter of all intellectual pursuits. Christians should be the first to encourage study and the last to be fearful of knowledge since God has established the study of knowledge as necessary for the Christian (cf. 2 Cor 10:3-5).

No better place can engender a Christian view of reason governed by Revelation than a biblical institution, taught by intentional Christian professors. Just as there is no bifurcation of secular—sacred so there is no dichotomy between the study of all things with The Source of everything. Interdisciplinary education in Christian venues can establish an answer to the questions, “How does everything fit together?” and “How does life make sense?” There is an intersection and unification of heaven and earth, supernatural and natural. From the very first statement in Scripture, unity and wholeness were necessary—“the heavens and the earth” meant “everything from A to Z” in the Hebrew mindset. There is a unity of Truth (Gen 1:1; Josh 2:11; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron 2:12). All “truth” is inclusive within His “Truth.” Since God alone made “the heavens and the earth” (Neh 9:6; Prov 30:4; Isa 44:24) and the whole of creation gives Him praise (Ps 69:34) Christian thinkers must answer the question “how do our studies give praise to God?” Enter the need for interdisciplinary education.

Interdisciplinary Education 

Clement of Alexandria answers the question, “How do our studies give praise to God?” In his writing Stromateis, Clement seeks to take fragments of knowledge and make them complete in Christ. He writes,

“The expert is the one who brings everything to bear on the truth. He culls whatever is useful from mathematics, the fine arts, literary studies, and, of course, philosophy, and protects the faith from all attacks” (1:9).

The Christian faith unifies truth since all truth has its origin from God. Christian educators, interested in the unity of all truth, are drawn to interdisciplinary education.

Objectives for IDSE The unity of all things under the Lordship of Jesus necessitates an educational process infused with meaning. Christians understand that pedagogical-andragogical practice is premised on mindset models. If one methodology is used to the exclusion of others not only does one framework usurp the educational enterprise but the multifaceted unity of God’s Truth is insufficiently enacted. If “the one and the many” are perfectly portrayed in The Trinity, it is incumbent upon the Christian educator to engage all of God’s creation within the unity-diversity model of The Trinity. Interdisciplinary studies education conforms to a broad, biblically based, Christian construct of the wholeness of God’s world. IDSE course objectives could include:

1. Biblically—The Scriptures interpret all disciplines (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

2. Apologetically—the Christian Faith is defended (Titus 1:9)

3. Ethnically—the unity of The Church is maintained (Galatians 3:29)

4. Experientially—the creation is open for exploration (Psalm 65:5-8)

5. Interactively—the student engages creational order (Psalm 8:5-8)

6. Relationally—the campus is involved in collaboration (Psalm 67)

7. Practically—the learning outcomes are for the common good (Titus 3:1, 8, 14)

Outcomes for IDSE Scripture maintains that the teaching-learning process goes both ways (Luke 6:40, Gal 6:6). Indeed, one Hebrew word lamad is translated as both “teaching” and “learning.” If all people are created in God’s image, with worth-value-dignity, then each person can contribute to their studies in a worthwhile manner. Choices of study formats can be created from various modalities including but not limited to: Field experiences, Lectures, Classes, Internships, Colloquia, Retreats, Seminars, Films, Overseas study, etc.

Student learning outcomes could include but are not limited to the following:

1. Create a Biblically-based, Spirit-driven intersection with contemporary culture.

2. Evaluate dominate cultural-truth claims through a Biblical lens.

3. Explore the experience of believing cultural agents with a Christian mindset.

4. Employ Scriptural guidelines to deduce a culture’s ethos.

5. Communicate Christian teaching as the synthesizing guide for culture decisions.

6. Assess The Church’s lifelong way of living with community customs.

7. Apply biblical principles that interact with the current culture.

8. Critique multiple cultural categories from a Christian vantage point.

9. Compose a Christian bibliography of current websites, journals, and books on culture.

10. Propose a project with intersects biblical teaching with cultural content.

In his letter to Gregory, Bishop of Caesarea, the Church father Origen said,

“I wish to ask you to extract from the philosophy of the Greeks what may serve as a course of study or a preparation for Christianity, and from geometry and astronomy what will serve to explain the sacred Scriptures, in order that all that the sons of the philosophers are wont to say about geometry and music, grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy, as fellow-helpers to philosophy, we may say about philosophy itself, in relation to Christianity.”

Origen’s words should prompt all courses of study taught by interdisciplinary Christian scholars to (1) initiate why a subject should be studied, without apology, through a biblical lens, (2) detail what syllabi, outcomes, objectives, and daily lessons contribute to any discussion from a Christ-centered point of view, and (3) create an interpretive approach to the subject explaining how the subject will be pursued, from what Christian vantage point.

Questions for IDSE Educational questions prompting biblical interdisciplinarity:

1. Do we ask ourselves, “How do I affect the biblical doctrine of coherence in my students, encouraging the intersection-unification of all things in the classroom?”

2. Do we teach knowledge or do we teach knowledge in relationship to our students, ourselves, and “the heavens and the earth?”

3. Do we ask, “How does God’s interpretation of His world show all things working together?

4. Do we view our students as grades in a book or do we remember that they may not have eaten breakfast this morning, had a fight with their parents last night, may be wondering what their life means, or are trying to make sense of “the heavens and the earth?”

5. Do we believe that all of life is interrelated and then give “pat answers” to our students’ questions about “the heavens and the earth?”

6. How does the biblical phrase “the ends of the earth” relate to my teaching? Do I follow the biblical pattern of arche to telos—“the beginning and the end”? Do we teach God’s original intention leading to His final consummation of all things?

7. When we speak of “integrity” do we understand and teach its connection with “integer,” “integral,” “integration,” and “intelligence” (comprehension of the whole)?

8. Do we use words in our teaching which provide “pointers” toward the God who made “the heavens and earth”: laws, prediction, sequence, possibility, direction, properties?

9. Do we separate spiritual, emotional, mental, physical, psychological aspects of our person without seeing them as the whole which makes us up?

10. Do we consider that all the aspects of our individual lives are interwoven within the fabric of “the heavens and the earth” for all people, places, cultures, and times? What do the implications of that question mean for my life and my teaching?

Examples of IDSE

Assignment Outcome Kevin is an Indianapolis environmental architect. In my class “Theology of Culture” I asked Kevin and the other class members to tie biblical themes learned in class with their vocation. Kevin’s interest in architectural landscaping introduced his classmates and me to biomimicry. Humans mimic biology in their building design. All of us were fascinated to discover that biomimicry exists as an industry. Kevin showed us pictures of a cathedral which incorporates plant patterns in its construction. A planetarium in Spain looks exactly like the human eye. The Turning Torso Tower in Sweden is built like a turning human torso. Desert bugs drink water from fog captured by their wingtips. Now builders recreate the bug’s wingtip coating on buildings to gather water from fog. The Galapagos shark is free of bacteria build up on its skin. Sharklet Technologies use the shark’s skin design to keep bacteria from clinging to hospital surfaces; it stops infections, saving lives. We were all so enthralled by Kevin’s presentation about biomimicry that his conclusion caught us off guard. Kevin said, “Frankly, up until now, I have always had a bent toward the tree-hugger, do-gooder side. Do the right thing, just because it is the right thing. But now I understand a theology of culture. Doing ‘the right thing’ is intimately tied to its Creator. I am a steward of The Creator’s creation and must manage creation well.”

Course Approach (Introduction to Philosophy Syllabus) Classic philosophical questions, arguments, models, and approaches will be understood not through human reason but thoroughly through Divine Revelation. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology: the first is dependent upon the second. Assumptions are at the core of every truth claim. People develop their perspectives consciously or unconsciously, applying the end results in life, often without thought. It is therefore preeminent for the Christian philosopher to establish philosophical directives in Transcendent Truth. While the philosophical process is rigorous—intellectually demanding—it must be remembered that Hebraic wisdom begins with fear of Yahweh (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Philosophical study can be beneficial to the surrounding culture at the same time maintaining an antithesis with current cultural claims.

Reflective Questions Part of the final IDS portfolio assignment could include connections to at least one of the school’s core institutional outcomes through affective inquiry.

1. What Spirit gifting has been entrusted to me and how have I practiced my vocation?

2. How has biblical teaching made me re-examine something in my life or culture?

3. What has biblical teaching caused me to accept or become passionate about my vocation?

4. What has biblical teaching caused me to change or resolve to do in my life’s work?

5. How have course readings impacted my thinking about interdisciplinary studies?

6. How has course content prepared me to confront the needs and problems of non-profits?

7. How has course content prepared me to think more broadmindedly as a Christian?

8. How will an interdisciplinary studies degree help my church and community?

9. What class has had the most impact on my life and why?

10. How is the doctrine of coherence fulfilled through my interdisciplinary coursework?

Conclusion

Basil the Great wrote To Young Men, on How They Might Derive Profit from Pagan Literature:

“The greatest of all contests lies before us for which we must do all things, and in preparation for it, must strive to the best of our power, and must associate with poets and writers of prose and orators and with all men from whom there is any prospect of benefit with reference to the care of our soul.”

Encouraging the interiority of our students can be best influenced through a biblical-theological interdisciplinarity. The best people to encourage the process of biblical-theological interdisciplinarity are Christian professors who themselves have been changed by Jesus’ salvation who now have hope of their students’ change. Changing the world has always begun by the change of self. Examples of environmental architects like Kevin could be multiple. All Christian students should engage biblical thinking which directs them to discover answers to the following interdisciplinary questions:

• What has come before? History: Timeless Truths through timeless texts.

• Why do ideas matter? Creativity: Theory-practice from theorist-practitioner.

• When do people benefit? Assessment: Distinctiveness because of excellence.

• How do people contribute? Collaboration: Teaching-learning in life-service.

• Where do ideas converge? Coherence: Diversity within unity.

• Who will you leave behind? Legacy: Leaders out of leaders.

Louis Markos summarizes an approach to biblical interdisciplinarity, “Each nation has its Torah and its book of proverbs, and, though only the biblical manifestations of these elements carry complete authority, traces of God’s truth and presence are to be found in all of them” (From Achilles to Christ, xxiv).

Dr. Mark Eckel delivered a 90-minute power point presentation of this topic at the ABHE Annual Conference, Friday, 20 February 2014 in Orlando, Florida. A version of this presentation is published in the Fall 2015 special academic edition of Christian Education Journal.

The Mindset of Interdisciplinary Studies in Christian Higher Education 

Sample Books and Book Chapters

Beck, William David. 1991. Opening the American mind: The integration of Biblical truth in the curriculum of the university. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Benne, Robert. 2001. Quality with soul: How six premier colleges and universities keep faith with their religious traditions. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Blamires, Harry. 1978. The Christian mind: How should a Christian think? London: S. P. C. K. Reprint, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant (page references are to the reprint edition).

Carpenter, Joel A. 2003. The mission of Christian scholarship in the new millennium. In Faithful learning and the Christian scholarly vocation, ed. Douglas V. Henry and Bob R. Agee, 62-74. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Carpenter, Joel A., and Kenneth W. Shipps, eds. 1987. Making higher education Christian: The history and mission of Evangelical colleges in America. Northfield, MN: Christian College Consortium.

Chiareli, Antonio A. 2002. Christian worldview and the social sciences. In Shaping a Christian worldview: The foundations of Christian higher education, ed. David S. Dockery and Gregory Alan Thornbury, 240-63. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Claerbaut, David. 2004. Faith and learning on the edge: A bold new look at religion in higher education. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Cosgrove, Mark P. 2006. Foundations of Christian thought: Faith, learning, and the Christian worldview. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Craig, William Lane, and Paul M. Gould, eds. 2007. The two tasks of the Christian scholar: Redeeming the soul, redeeming the mind. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Davis, Jeffry C. and Philip G. Ryken, eds. Liberal Arts for the Christian Life.  Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2012.

Davis, Jimmy H. 2002. Faith and learning. In Shaping a Christian worldview: The foundations of Christian higher education, ed. David S. Dockery and Gregory Alan Thornbury, 129-48. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Dennison, William D. 2007. A Christian Approach to Interdisciplinary Studies: In Search of a Method and Starting Point. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Dockery, David S., and David P. Gushee. 1999. The future of Christian higher education. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Dockery, David S., and Gregory Alan Thornbury, eds. 2002. Shaping a Christian worldview: The foundations of Christian higher education.  Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Evans, C. Stephen. 2003. The calling of the Christian scholar-teacher. In Faithful learning and the Christian scholarly vocation, ed. Douglas V. Henry and Bob R. Agee, 26-49. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Gangel, Kenneth O. 2002. Any dream won’t do! Preparing defenders of the faith. In Called to lead: Understanding and fulfilling your role as an educational leader, ed. Kenneth O. Gangel, 195-208. Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design.

Garber, Steven. 1996. The fabric of faithfulness: Weaving together belief and behavior during the university years. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Gill, David W. 1989. The opening of the Christian mind: Taking every though captive to Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

________, ed. 1997. Should God get tenure?: Essays on religion and higher education. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Gushee, David P. 1999. Attract them by your way of life: The professor’s task in the Christian university. In The future of Christian higher education, ed. David S. Dockery and David P. Gushee, 137-53. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Heie, Harold, and David Wolfe, eds. 1987. The reality of Christian learning: strategies for faith-learning integration. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Henry, Douglas V., and Bob R. Agee, eds. 2003. Faithful learning and the Christian scholarly vocation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Henry, Douglas V. and Michael D. Beaty, eds. 2006. Christianity and the soul of the university: Faith as a foundation for intellectual community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Himes, Michael J., and Stephen J. Pope, eds. 1996. Finding God in all things: Essays in Honor of Michael J. Buckley, S. J.  New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company.

Holmes, Arthur F. 1977. All truth is God’s truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

__________. 1985. Toward a Christian view of things. In The making of a Christian mind: A Christian world view and the academic enterprise, ed. Arthur F. Holmes, 11-28. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Mannoia, V. James Jr. 2000. Christian liberal arts: An education that goes beyond. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Markos, Louis. 2005. Wrestling in the academy: How Christian professors can train their students to grapple with ideas. Intégrité 4 (Fall): 16-22.

Migliazzo, Arlin C. 2002a. Conclusion: A prudent synergy: pedagogy for mind an spirit. In Teaching as an act of faith: Theory and practice in church-related higher education, ed. Arlin C. Migliazzo, 313-336. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.

__________. 2002b. Introduction: An odyssey of the mind and spirit. In Teaching as an act of faith: Theory and practice in church-related higher education, ed. Arlin C. Migliazzo, xix-xiii. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.

Nwosu, Constance C. 1999. Integration of faith and learning in Christian higher education: Professional development of teachers and classroom implementation. Ph.D. diss., Andrews University.

Plantinga, Cornelius. 2002. Engaging God’s world: A Christian vision of faith, learning, and living. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Poe, Harry Lee. 2004. Christianity in the academy: Teaching at the intersection of faith and learning. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Ream, Todd C., Jerry Pattengale, and David L. Riggs, eds.  Beyond integration? Inter/Disciplinary possibilities for the future of Christian higher education.  Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2012.

Riley, Naomi Schaefer. 2005. God on the quad: How religious colleges and the missionary generation are changing America. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee.

Ringenberg, William C. 2006. The Christian college: A history of Protestant higher education in America. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Schaeffer, Francis A. 1971a. Escape from reason. Reprint, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press (page references are to the reprint edition).

__________. 1971b. The God who is there: Speaking historic Christianity into the twentieth century. Reprint, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press (page references are to the reprint edition).

__________. 1981. A Christian manifesto. Westchester, IL: Crossway.

Sinnema, Donald. 2001. Beyond integration to holistic Christian scholarship. In Marginal resistance: Essays dedicated to John C. Vander Stelt¸ ed. John H. Kok, 187-207. Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press.

Walsh, Brian J., and J. Richard Middleton. 1984. The transforming vision:  shaping a Christian world view. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Sample Articles

Agee, Bob R. 2004. Christian faith and the academic disciplines: Finding the right context for discussion. Integrite 3 (Fall): 3-12.

Badley, Kenneth Rea. 1994. The faith/learning integration movement in Christian higher education: Slogan or substance? Journal of Research on Christian Education 3 (Spring):13-33.

Brantley, Paul. 1994. From Athens to Jerusalem and points beyond: The continuing search for an integrated faith. Journal of Research on Christian Education 3 (Spring): 7-12.

Burton, Larry D., and Constance C. Nwosu. 2002. Student perceptions of the integration of faith, learning, and practice in a selected education course. Paper presented at Educating for Life: Fifth Biennial Symposium of the Coalition of Christian Teacher Educators, Grand Rapids, MI., 24-25 May. ERIC, ED 476 074.

__________. 2003. Student perceptions of the integration of faith, learning and practice in an educational methods course. Journal of Research on Christian Education 12 (Fall): 101-35.

Clouser, Roy A. 2003. Is there a Christian view of everything from soup to nuts? Pro Rege 31 (June): 1-10.

Clowney, Edmund P. 1970. The Christian college and the transformation of culture. Christian Scholar’s Review 1 (Fall): 5-18.

Coe, John H. 1994. An interdependent model of integration and the Christian university. Faculty Dialogue 21 (Spring-Summer): 111-37.

Dennison, William D. 2006. In search of a starting point and a method for interdisciplinary studies in the context of Christian theism. Pro Rege 34 (September): 10-23.

Estep, James Riley Jr. 2002. Can a Christian be a dean? Toward a theological approach to academic administration in Christian higher education. Christian Education Journal, n.s., 6:35-54.

Gustafson, Loren T., Gary L. Karns, and Lisa Klein Surdyk. 2000. Teaching through the eyes of faith: An investigation of faith-learning integration in the business classroom. Research in Christian Higher Education 7 (July): 1-19.

Lawrence, Terry Anne, Larry D. Burton, and Constance C. Nwosu. 2005. Refocusing on the learning in “integration of faith and learning.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 14 (Spring): 17-50.

Lyon, Larry, and Michael Beaty. 2005. Integration, secularization, and the two-spheres view at religious colleges: Comparing Baylor university with the university of Notre Dame and Georgetown college. Christian Scholar’s Review 35 (Fall): 73-112.

Lyon, Larry, Michael Beaty, James Parker, and Carson Mencken. 2005.  Faculty attitudes on integrating faith and learning at religious colleges and universities: a research note. Sociology of Religion 66 (Spring): 61-69.

Matthews, Lionel, and Elvin Gabriel. 2001. Dimensions of the integration of faith and learning: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Research on Christian Education 10 (Spring): 23-38.

Patterson, James A. 2005. Boundary maintenance in evangelical Christian higher education: A case study of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. Christian Higher Education 4 (January-March):41-56.

Ream, Todd, Michael Beaty, and Larry Lyon. 2004. Faith and Learning: Toward a typology of faculty views at religious research universities. Christian Higher Education 3 (October-December): 349-72.

Thompson, Thomas J. 2000. Bridging the gap: Faith, learning, and living in Christian professional programs. The Cedarville College Tenure Committee. Retrieved 3 February 2007 from https://cedarville.edu.