Previous Home Next Table of Contents
12.
Education for the Future
The outreach of the church, however, is not the
only area that has been affected by a faulty vision of the future.
The education of the members and what is taught has been equally affected
by the leaven of modernism. The
biblical idea of education is centered in the transmission of truths received
concerning Jesus and the age of the Gentiles.
These truths are given relevancy by showing their fulfillment to the Old
Testament types and prophecy. Where
the Jewish reinterpretations had distorted the truth of God’s saving activity
in Jesus, the Scriptural writers restored God’s truth to its true intent. This was achieved by providing needed doctrinal corrections
for the church to be guided by. This
equipping or training of the membership was primarily the responsibility of the
leadership who
oversaw the functioning of the church. They did this primarily by teaching and by expounding the
truth of Scripture. That this was a
primary responsibility for the leadership is found in Peter’s exhortation to
the elders to “feed the flock of God” (I Peter 5:2
KJV). This is demonstrated
by Paul who declared the full counsel of God to the church at Ephesus and warned
the elders to “watch” and “take heed” over the flock God has placed them
(Acts 20:27-31). This teaching and
exhortation responsibility are indicated by Paul when he wrote to Timothy to
commit the truths he had received “to faithful men, who shall be able to teach
others also’ (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV).
From these passages it is clear that one of the tasks of education in the
assembly was the transmission of doctrinal truth and practice.
Furthermore, the membership was exhorted many times in Scriptural
writings to stand fast in and hold on to the traditions which had been received.
Modern education in the church, however, has departed from this type of
method. Instead of transmitting
absolute truth and doctrine, education has become characterized by a more
subjective approach to teaching truth and a reliance upon development theories.
Even more alarming is the way that James Fowler’s theory of faith
development is influencing the goal and nature of religious education.
This theory has become a very popular theory among individuals who have
sought to synthesize their faith with modern understandings of man.
This is expressed by Craig Dykstria and Sharon Parks in the introduction
of a book they have published on faith development.
In this book they state regarding the importance of this theory:
...James W. Fowler, whose faith development theory has quickly
become one of the most widely known and influential theories of
human development having to do with faith and religious life.
Its
influence has been particularly strong among those who are
responsible for thinking through and carrying out the ministries
of education and care in religious communities.
(p. 1)
When
asked why this theory is so important, they respond:
Our answer is that Fowler addresses concerns that are central
and abiding in religious education and pastoral care and in our
own lives of faith....It is an expression of a wider cultural and
intellectual mood. It is a
consolidation and crystallization of a
whole way of seeing things that is already in some sense
“out there.” Fowler, we
think, tells many of his readers, but
in a way that they could not have put it themselves, what they
in some sense already “know” to be the case.
(p. 2)
In other words, Fowler has simply been the
“courageous” one to express what others have been wanting to say.
Whatever this wider “mood” may be regarded as, it is the same type of
existential approach to Scripture which has been outlined in other parts of this
book. The goal of ministry and
faith when expressed in education is given an earthly vision called the
“ultimate environment.” Thus education becomes leavened with this perspective.
What this means is that people who are responsible for writing Sunday
School Curriculum, developing discipleship materials or training manuals,
writing scholarly books on religious education, and the like, are being guided
by this new approach and understanding of man.
This “wider intellectual mood,” however, is not biblical.
Of more concern, the effects of this perspective go unperceived at the
local church because the individuals writing the educational materials are not
known directly. The most a person might find out concerning the writer is a
list of credentials and achievements which are somehow to reflect the person’s
ability to develop the Sunday School and other educational materials.
At the local level, the layman and teacher are not even aware of the
types of goals and values that these writers are being guided by.
In many ways, the local teachers become active participants in this
educational deception. Looking at
the principles of Fowler’s faith development theory will demonstrate how it is
affecting education.
James Fowler has suggested that faith may be understood by a series of
stages of development, six which he has identified.
These stages of faith are connected to the social development of the
individual, much as Erickson has developed in his developmental theory.
The key to moving from one stage to the next is a crisis or event which
challenges the individual. In addition to these stages of faith, Fowler has defined
types of faith which are associated with each stage.
The two which are of greatest interest to this discussion is the
Synthetic Conventional type and the Radical Monotheistic type.
I pick these two because one can be viewed as more descriptive of the way
faith is held by many individuals, while the other is the type of faith which
Fowler sees as of highest value and authenticity.
The Synthetic Conventional type, the one which most Christians would fit
into, is described this way:
Faith must provide a coherent orientation in the midst of that more
complex and diverse range of
involvement. Faith must synthesize
values and information....
It structures
the ultimate environment in interpersonal terms. Its
images of unifying value and power derive from the extension of
qualities experienced in personal relationships.
It is a “conformists”
stage in the sense that it is acutely turned to the expectations and
judgments of significant others and as yet does not have a sure
enough grasp on its own identity and autonomous judgment to
construct and maintain an independent perspective.
(p. 172-173)
What this suggests is the individual sees the future
in terms of what others, such as the preacher and Sunday School teacher, have
taught. The person has not
questioned the truth of what is taught but accepts them as reality and certain.
Thus, the Christian is a conformist to the ideas of others and has not
derived values for himself. You
might recall from earlier discussions that this type of faith would be described
as inauthentic faith since the individual fails to take full responsibility for
his own values and beliefs. While
doctrinal and dogmatic types of teaching can and do occur in the local church,
it is far from the ideal in this scheme. As
is evident from the description of this type of faith, when absolute truth or
doctrinal emphasis is stressed by the teacher, this type of faith is the result.
Thus, a lot of believers are stuck in a Synthetic Conventional type of
faith which is far from the ideal.
The type of faith which is viewed as the ideal is described as Radical
Monotheistic faith or Universalizing faith.
...type of faith-identity relation in which a person or group focuses
its supreme trust and loyalty in a transcendent center of value and
power, that is neither a conscious or unconscious extension of a
personal or group ego, nor a finite cause or institution. Rather this
type monotheism implies loyalty to the principle of being and to
the source and center of all value and power.
This transcendent
center of value and power is being symbolized or conceptualized in
both theistic and monotheistic ways in the major religion’s traditions
of the world. (p. 23)
This type of faith is directed toward a vision of the
future that is not part of a present group identity.
In other words, the view of the future will be more bound by a devotion
and loyalty to the source of all being and not that revealed in Scriptures only.
Faith will be directed toward the ultimate environment which is inclusive
of all mankind and transcends the usual barriers of mankind.
This faith manifests itself in a loyalty to the principle of being for
all mankind. This type of faith is
further described in this way:
In radical monotheistic faith persons are bound to each other in
trust and loyalty - to each other and to an inclusive center of value
and power - in relation to which our tribal gods and finite goals
must be seen for what they are. Radical
monotheistic faith calls
people to an identification with a universal community....Our
potentially henotheistic centers of value and power can be loved
with a proper and proportionate devotion.
(p. 23)
This means that man’s loyalty to the Christian view
of the future, Christ’s second coming and heaven, must be viewed for “what
they are,” meaning mythical
extensions of group consciousness about the quest of man and his end.
James Fowler suggests that this type of faith is the character of the
world’s “coming faith.” As this implies, doctrinal truth is to be viewed as only a
partial truth. When it comes to
education and its methods, if this is believed, the task of the educator must be
to move individuals from synthetic conventional type of faith toward a faith
described as radical monotheistic. This
is a faith which is directed toward the actualization of
a “universal community.” This,
no doubt, will be brought about by man as he first participates in the true
character of the “New Beings,” as Tillich would call it.
One can only begin to think of the implications of this type of view of
the future when it comes to religious education.
This is the reason that so many have denounced doctrine and creeds.
Once a denunciation of doctrine has been achieved, the goal of a global
community as suggested by Fowler can then be embraced.
This type of scenario can only occur where truth is no longer viewed as
absolute. Those doctrines or views
of the future which would contradict or deny the opportunity for this future to
occur will be looked upon as archaic or inauthentic modes of belief.
Education will thus not be the transmission of doctrinal truths but of
moving individuals toward a full embracement of the ultimate environment and
from blind acceptance of the “dogmatic truths received.”
An interesting aspect of this theory, however, is that educators will not
attempt a sudden or full pronouncement that these types of goals have replaced
the mythical return of Jesus. Rather,
by looking at Fowler’s other stages, one can begin to see how individuals can
be subtly and carefully directed toward this goal. The simple way this is expressed, and it sounds so loving and
innocent, is that man is to accept people where they are and try to move them in
the right direction over time. This
is called equipping the saints for ministry.
Thus, if one is searching for educators to demand Stage 6 type of faith
be manifested by all in the church, this will not occur.
That would not be the loving thing to do.
Instead, through value clarification, confronting with key issues, the
introduction of humanistic and existential values in the educational material,
people are naturally lead toward this goal.
But let the reader look at the steps more closely as it is being done.
As has been stated, Stage 3 involves a synthetic type of faith in which
individuals conform their ideas and object of faith from significant others
around them. How a person begins to
moves to Stage 4 is described as follows:
For a genuine move to Stage 4 to occur there must be an
interruption of reliance on external sources of authority.
The
“tyranny of the they” - or the potential for it - must be
undermined...
there must be for stage 4, a relocation of authority within the self.
While others and their judgments will remain important to the
Individual-Reflective person, their expectations, advice and counsel
will be submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the
right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for
their choice. (p. 179)
The self, previously sustained in its identity and faith composition
by an interpersonal circle of significant others, now acclaims an
identity no longer defined by the composite of one’s roles or
meaning to others. To
sustain that new identity it composes a
meaning frame conscious of its own boundaries and inner
connections and aware of itself as a “world view.”
Self
(identity) and outlook (world view) are differentiated from those
of others. (p. 182)
It is clear that this type of faith is characteristic
of what is being promoted by many in leadership today.
As long as one looks to Scriptures as God’s authoritative and
infallible Word for man for all matters of faith and practice, the person has
not reached this type of faith. Something
must first happen to get the person to stop relying totally on this external
source of authority, the ”tyranny of they.”
This is easily accomplished in Sunday School discussions which are
nothing more than value clarification sessions.
For others, this type of faith is promoted when Scripture is interpreted
by ideals, opinions, thoughts, philosophies, etc..
The results are the same; a person begins to believe what he feels and
thinks is right. This is exalted as
freedom from the tyranny of God’s Word and doctrine. Truth becomes truth only when it is accepted by an
“internal panel of experts.” While
significant others may be respected, often tolerated might be a better word with
regard to these significant others, their beliefs and what they teach as
absolute is really nothing more than another piece of information which is
considered and presented to the “panel.”
The goal of all this type of internal reasoning is that a unique world
view or vision of the future comes to mind.
It is easy to see how this stage of faith can be initiated in the
educational process. At the
seminary level, this style of education and training is paramount.
Professors seem to go out of their way in an effort to avoid making
doctrinal statements which would be considered as absolute truth.
The result is that the future leadership of the local assemblies develops
a diverse theology, as is exalted as a blessing in Baptist life, with each
claiming the right and “competency” to believe as they do.
Of course, once this type of subjective value system filters down to the
local assembly, the people begin to decide matters of faith and practice in the
same subjective manner. When a
group of believers and a preacher find they have certain interpretations and
dreams in common, there may exist a peaceful co-existence until something enters
the organization which attacks their subjective way of interpreting Scripture. Education in these situations is primarily centered around
finding justification of how “I feel and what I think is right.”
Nonetheless, at some point, these members and leaders may be lead toward
a stage 5 type of faith.
Stage 5 type of faith is one which begins to accept the varied views of
others. The individual is not
threatened by opposing value systems or beliefs but rather tries to incorporate
these beliefs into a coherent system of thought.
This stage is described in this manner:
What the mystics call “detachment” characterizes Stage 5’s
willingness
to let reality speak its word, regardless of the impact of that word on
the
security or self-esteem of the knower.
I speak here of an intimacy in
knowing that celebrates, reverences, and attends to the “wisdom”
evolved in things as they are, before seeking to modify, control or
order them to fit prior categories.
(p. 185)
Stage 5 accepts as axiomatic that truth is more multidimensional and
organically interdependent than most theories or accounts of truth
can grasp. Religiously, it
knows that the symbols, stories, doctrines
and liturgies offered by its own or other traditions are inevitably
partial,
limited to a particular people’s experience of God and incomplete...is
ready for significant encounters with other traditions than its own,
expecting that truth has disclosed and will disclose itself in those
traditions in ways that may complement or correct its own. (p. 186)
Ready for closeness to that which is different and threatening to self
and outlook....this stage’s commitment to justice is freed from the
confines of tribe, class, religious community or nation.
It also sees
the divisions of the human family vividly because it
has been apprehended by the possibility (and imperative) of an
inclusive community of being.
(p. 198)
This level of faith is achieved when individuals begin to look to other
religious traditions for sources of truth.
In this faith, the tribal beliefs of the Christian tradition are reduced
from any type of surpassing and infallible authority to be included among a
number of other beliefs. In fact,
the Christian belief is seen in how it tends to alienate individuals as it is
practiced in its present form. Thus,
the individual begins to let reality, the decisive nature of present Christendom
in social relations, to speak the truth.
Granted this type of faith will not be accepted in a majority of Sunday
School classes. However, this type
of thinking is not all together absent. The
main reason it is not expressed more openly is that it is clear what the
ramifications would be and how people would respond to this type of faith.
But let the reader remember, this is an influential system of thought.
It is just a matter of time before more will teach this type of thought
concerning faith. It is only
a matter of more leaders who are trained and brought up under this type of faith
system to lead more individuals and influence people in this direction.
One might even suspect a lot of inter-faith work that is occurring as an
attempt to bring credibility to this position.
From a practical standpoint, while this may not be consciously accepted
by individuals in the local assemblies, their lifestyle and witness are already
characterized by this type of faith. How
one asks? Whenever they are
confronted with other religious traditions or beliefs, the average believer in
Jesus will not denounce them but will accept them as being okay if that person
wants to hold those beliefs. Afterall,
faith is a personal thing. Who
wants to say what is right or wrong or try to “force” his views on another.
Thus, it is not uncommon to hear of those who would combine Far East
mysticism with the Christian faith as if they were complementary.
This is only to be expected, however, in an
atmosphere where diversity, toleration and uncritical acceptance
are exalted above truth and doctrine.
The kind of faith described in this stage has been accepted and promoted
by other influential theologians, like Richard Neibuhr who says:
...God makes himself known to men in other ways than through the
Christ. The Christian is not
the only human being who has knowledge
of God, of who he is and what he wants.
Believers in other faiths may
well have some genuine truth, occasionally even developed to a
rather advanced stage. Neibuhr...believes
that God’s special revelation,
his message in the Christ, fulfills the general revelation and gives it
the context in which the universally known can properly be
understood. (Borowitz,
p. 125)
Stage 5 faith may appeal to those who wish to be open
to all that claims to be truth, including Joseph Smith, but it is a fundamental
denial of the Scriptural claim to being God’s revelation to man.
While stage 5 is not well accepted, the sixth stage is said to be
experienced by only a few individuals, like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, etc..
This stage, however, is viewed as the highest type of faith in which
Radical Monotheistic faith is actualized. The
transition to this stage and the nature of it is described as follows:
The views of Stage 5 remain paradoxical or divided, however, because
one is caught between these universalizing apprehensions and the need
to preserve one’s own well being.
The transition
to Stage 6 involves an overcoming of this paradox
through a moral and ascetic actualization of the universalizing
apprehensions...the individual at Stage 6 becomes a disciplined,
activist incarnation of the imperatives of absolute love and justice....
This person engages in spending and being spent in order to
transform present reality in the direction of a transcendent
actuality. (Fowler &
Keen, p.88)
A feeling of oneness or unity with the intent or “character” of the
ultimate environment radically changes the status and importance
of the self...the self has now founds it ground in and identity with
Being, its style of composing a sense of ultimate environment is
synthetic and unitive....The bounds of social awareness become
universal, but not merely in an abstract sense.
There is a profound
regard for all Being. (Fowler
& Keen, p. 89-90)
The basic idea in these descriptions is that the
individual no longer struggles between his loyalty to cultural or group
attachments and the universalizing community when the former hinders the later
from becoming an actuality. In
other words, the cost of breaking ties with groups once valued is not feared.
The person becomes subversive because he attempts to show people how
their petty cultural and tribal beliefs are hindering the transformation of the
world into a global community. Since
Christianity as it is being proclaimed tends to separate individuals, as Jesus
said it would, it is no longer feared to side-step or modify its beliefs to fit
with the view of a global environment which is characterized by love and justice
for all. Brotherhood is no longer seen in terms of those
redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ but all of
mankind. While these types of
beliefs may bring conflict and hatred by those who were once regarded as peers,
the cost of taking this stand does not matter.
The dream of an ultimate environment becomes the all consuming ideal
which one attempts to actualize. A
dream which does not come from heaven, as Scripture suggests, but which is
brought about by man.
That this type of faith level is being promoted is already seen in the
current trends in theological thought. Many
no longer are afraid to speak of the idea of a global community becoming an
actuality. Education in the
church’s takes on the emphasis of the virtues of love and justice in man’s
relations. The literature and
methods of evangelism equally become dominated by these two imperatives.
(This is interesting since Jesus exalted the virtue of holiness, “Our
Father....Hallowed be thy name.”) This
level of faith becomes possible when individuals begin to be confronted with the
chaos in economics and the environment. The fear of nuclear war, the spread of
chemical pollution, the rise of drug addiction, and many like issues all make
the individual receptive ground for sowing this type of
faith development. The
Christian when faced with these realities and confronted by the fact that he
really does not know when or if Jesus is coming back, forces him to begin to
take these ideas seriously. How
else is man going to face the reality which is evident around him.
Equally, to oppose the type of goals declared in Stage 6 type of faith is
to wish destruction, chaos, alienation and estrangement upon mankind.
Who in their right mind would want this?
This type of thinking, however, is to be expected when the Christian
lives by sight rather than by faith. As
a result, religious education which is influenced by Fowler’s ideas will not
be quickly dismissed since the goals seem so innocent and good.
The fact, however, that this is so gladly embraced by unbelievers should
warn the Christian to the subtleness of the deceit.
James Fowler admits that the more secular the audience the more
interested they seem to be in this type of faith identity.
The reason he gives for this:
They actualize its promise, creating zones of liberation and sending
shock waves to rattle the cages that we allow to constrict human
futurity. Their trust in the
power of that future and their trans-
narcisitic love of human futurity account for their readiness to
spend and be spent in making the kingdom actual.
(p. 211)
I have no doubt that a lost person who has never
experienced the life-changing truth of the gospel would quickly let go the
Christian truths and view of the future for one which is accomplished by man.
For these individuals, the claim of having risen above the “cages” of
doctrinal truth which keep man from living in an inclusive community is
important. The belief that man is
unable due to sin to make himself and his world better is gladly left in the
dungeons of archaic beliefs. Unfortunately,
this theory has been described as one of the most influential theories with
regards to religious life.
Without a doubt, the affects of this theory have already shown up in the
teachings and discussions at seminaries. In
keeping with the idea of a universal community, Dr. Sparkman suggests that being
a child of God is not a status of salvation because all are children of God (p.
33). This type of ideal would be
considered freed from the “cages” of dogmatism. Yet this theory has affected even an understanding of the
ordinances of the church. Dr.
Sparkman appears to go on to suggest that the ordinance of Baptism is in reality
just a statement that an individual has accepted the education and nurture in
the faith he has received. Sparkman
states it this way:
Our children, truly reared in the faith, do not need to throw off the old
life of sin and take on the new life of faith.
They have, all along, been
choosing faith over sin and choosing sin over faith, and will continue to
do so through out their lives. But
at their baptism they are indicating that
they have now faced the true meaning of sin and the effectuality of the
grace and faith in which they have been nurtured.
(p. 25)
This statement seems to imply that salvation is
effectually wrought in the believer by being truly “reared in the faith.”
Baptism no longer is a public confession of dying to the old way of life,
but of simply accepting that one has accepted the faith he has been nurtured in.
The importance of this point is that if one can be nurtured into
salvation, then it is true the world can be nurtured into espousing a global
community dominated with the virtues of love and justice.
This type of thought, however, forgets that salvation is more of God
choosing man than man choosing God. While
the later is an aspect of true conversion, the difference between the two is
enormous. In one, the results of
children choosing God leads only to a religious attitude toward life.
In the other, God takes hold of the child and pours His Spirit upon them
to make them ambassadors. In the
first, a lifestyle is chosen and embraced.
In the second, God’s Spirit washes the child and sanctifies him through
the renewing of his mind. While
education may be useful in guiding people into the kind of faith that is
desired, the true basis of biblical education is an impartation of the doctrinal
truths which have been received. When
the theory of Fowler is accepted, the possibility of teaching children into
heaven would seem possible since the heaven which is envisioned is one that
transcends the Scriptural descriptions. It
equally is one in which all man can participate.
The affects of this theory are equally showing up at the local church
level. A casual study of the themes
that appear to be prevalent in teaching and preaching seem to cluster around the
ideas of love and justice. Love
toward God and man’s neighbor and being just in ones' judgments and opinions
is stressed. It is interesting that
these two virtues have been exalted above holiness which seems to be the
greatest concern to God with regard to man’s approach to Him.
As a result, the righteous and holy character of God’s people continues
to decline while they become great on love and in being more tolerant and
accepting of others. Equally,
God’s people become great on not judging others particularly when it would be
better if they were honest about another person’s true condition before God.
Furthermore, the fact that most of the attention in the church is
directed toward mundane goals and visions has caused the truth of Jesus’
return to be forgotten by the church’s busyness.
Perhaps one of the more
frightening aspects of this type of theory and vision of the future is that it
seems to be only one step away from a full embracement of the doctrines of the
New Age movement. In both ideas and
systems, morality and values are not determined by the “traditions” of
man, but rather as they determine how man might best achieve the ultimate
environment or global community. Religion
is not defined in either system by certain values and truths, it is rather a
signification for the mystical subjective experiences which man has used to
define truth and values. Religion
is man’s connection to the ultimate center of power and value.
With regards to the future, neither look to Jesus as coming, rather the
goal is a global community in which all will participate.
In both the New Age and theories like Fowler’s, man becomes his end, in
fact he becomes a god. If this
proposal seems a little far fetched, I would simply encourage the reader to get
a copy of the Humanist Manifesto II of 1973 and see just how many similarities
there exist between the theology presented in this book and those in the
Manifesto. In many ways, the
Humanist Manifesto II has become the Confession of Faith for the New Age
Movement. It seems likely to become
the Confession of Faith for theological thought as well.
Previous Home Next Table of Contents
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson