Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a talk given by Dr. John C. Wingard, Jr., then Professor of Philosophy at Erskine College, at convocation in the spring of 2007. Dr. Wingard did not post this text to the SAFE website. We are posting it here because of its clear explanation of the integration of Christian faith and learning that ought to occur in a Christian liberal arts education.

———————————————————————

Learning to Read Two Books:

Some Reflections on the Nature and Value of Christian Liberal Arts Education

John C. Wingard, Jr.

I want to thank the Convocation Committee for inviting me to speak with you today about something that I’m quite passionate about – the project of integrating Christian faith and learning. What a privilege to be engaged in such a project and to get to speak to you about it. In the brief time we have together this morning, I’d like to set forth in broad outline a vision for scholarship and education that is faithful both to Christ and to the traditional idea of liberal arts education – a vision that, where realized, has real promise of bearing significant fruit of the sort that traditional liberal arts education is all about.

The Secularistic Mainstream Academic Model

To get into our topic, let’s begin by noting a significant feature of the prevailing educational perspective today. The default setting in educational philosophy in our culture is one, inherited from modernism, that recognizes a fairly rigid dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. On this view, the secular is supposed to be public and the domain of reason rather than “faith” (divine revelation). The sacred, on the other hand, is personal and private, and the domain of “faith” (divine revelation) rather than reason. Now, according to the mainstream academic model, scholarship and education are supposed to be on the secular side of the divide and somehow neutral or non-committal with respect to religious perspective or worldview.

Consequently, there is in the mainstream academy the expectation that in doing our scholarly work within our disciplines, we will keep our own particular worldviews and religious commitments on a shelf – like children’s shoes at a McDonald’s Play Place or your baggage when you board an airplane. What that means for those of us who are Christians is that we are to do our scholarship and teaching as if there is no God and no interaction between God and the world. In other words, in our work we are ordinarily expected to adopt naturalism – at least methodological naturalism, if not metaphysical or worldview naturalism. Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is. There’s no God, no reality that transcends the natural, material world. As the astronomer Carl Sagan, one of the high priests of naturalism, used to say, “the cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” (Of course, Sagan is now dead; and I seriously doubt that he’s still a naturalist. Ironically that’s something about which Christians and naturalists will agree! But I digress.) What I’ve just described is worldview naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a commitment essentially to pursue our work as if naturalism is true – to accept naturalism as a foundational commitment for the sake of our scholarship and teaching. In other words, I can be a Christian theist on my own time, but not while on the job.

Now, this is part of the prevailing philosophy of scholarship and education within the academy at large in the West. But for Christians this is obviously quite problematic, isn’t it?! Let’s consider just four problems:

(a) First, the secularistic model assumes mistakenly that we can engage in scholarly inquiry in a way that is neutral with respect to worldviews or religious perspectives and commitments.

That assumption, inherited from modernism and the whole Enlightenment project, is simply naïve and has been decisively debunked.

Note in particular here that an insistence that we employ methodological naturalism in the academy is certainly not worldview neutral. No. It privileges worldview naturalism over other worldviews in that context, and it does so without adequate justification. In other words, to make methodological naturalism the norm in the academic enterprise is to institutionalize a bias against non-naturalistic worldviews such as Christian theism.

That such would be found problematic to the serious and thoughtful Christian should not be surprising. Quite the contrary. That Christians would be willing uncritically to play this game – that’s what’s surprising!

(b) Secondly, the secularistic model of scholarship and education implies that there are areas of thought and life that are not adversely affected by sin, thus in need of the sort of critical, redemptive discernment that Christianity affords—and this is an implication that the thoughtful Christian will recognize to be naïve at best and intellectually irresponsible at worst.

(c) Thirdly, the secular model implies that God’s revelation to us in Scripture either is incapable of helping us in our search for truth altogether or whatever contributions it might make are insignificant or at best second-rate – not worthy of the label “scholarship.” Again, the thinking Christian will find this unacceptable – not only foolish, but arrogant as well. From an evangelical Christian standpoint, such an implication is obviously outrageous.

(d) But even more problematic than the aforementioned implications, the prevailing secularist view of education and scholarship implies that there are areas of thought and life that are not under the Lordship of King Jesus! I don’t think the essential Christian position on Jesus’ authority has ever been put more clearly than Abraham Kuyper did when he asserted that “there is not a square inch of the universe over which King Jesus does not claim, ‘Mine!’”

What should we conclude then about the Secularist Academic Model? Bottom line, the secularistic model of education and scholarship is essentially non-Christian – or better, anti-Christian.

Is there a better way?

The Two Books Model of Scholarship and Education

Is there a better, more faithful, model of scholarship and education? I believe so. I believe that a much better model, especially for the Christian who wishes to think consistently and be faithful to his or her core commitments, is what we might call a “Two Books Model.”

A Two Books Model recognizes that God is ultimately the source of all Truth and Knowledge, and that He has given us two “texts” to study in order to flourish as human beings: the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. Recognizing as we do that Nature and Scripture share the same transcendent Author, and that the two books reveal much significant Truth and complement one another, the Christian can then approach the academic enterprise by way of an integrated study of both Books. On this model, scholarship is a matter, then, of reading the two books carefully and in an integrated way, and education is a matter of learning how to read the two Books in this fashion.

Notice that such an approach is clearly and self-consciously Christian from the get-go. There’s no pretense to worldview neutrality. There’s nothing underhanded or sly about it. Scholar-teachers are “up front” about their worldview commitments. There’s real intellectual honesty.

Notice, too, that this is not a recipe for a Bible college or for some sort of professional education. Rather, what’s envisioned here is a robust, full-orbed, integrative education in the liberal arts and sciences.

There are numerous advantages of this model over the prevailing secularistic alternative. I’ll just mention three very quickly here – three points that help to make it clear that the Two Books Model is completely consistent with, and in fact, an expression of, the traditional ideal of liberal arts education.

Scholarship and education done on the Two Books Model (call it “TBM” for short) can and should produce a better view of reality than is possible for scholarship done according to secularistic norms.

(a) First, TBM yields a more accurate view of reality. We have a huge advantage in having and employing the corrective lenses of Scripture in our study of the world – lenses that correct for sin and for our natural limitations as creatures.

(b) Second, TBM yields a much richer, more comprehensive view of reality than is possible for the more truncated, reductionary approach of the secularistic mainstream. For example, relationships that go unnoticed in the mainstream secularist academy can be fruitfully discovered and explored using the Two Books Model.

(c) Third, TBM yields a more unified and coherent view of reality. Greater richness does not compromise the unity and coherence of the whole! The sort of education envisioned in the Two Books Model enables us to see how the various parts of reality fit together.

Think about the academic enterprise as trying to put a very large, very complex, jigsaw puzzle together. Secularistic scholarship has some of the pieces. Some of the pieces it thinks it has don’t belong to the puzzle at all. But others do belong, and Christians should embrace and celebrate this! However, secularistic scholarship puts them in the wrong places; or it finds itself confused, not knowing where the pieces fit within the context of the whole, thus leaving the puzzle fragmented – largely unsolved.

Scholarship done according to Two Books Model, on the other hand, has more of the actual pieces and it has more of them in the right places on the board. The result is that the picture is more accurate, unified, and complete. And that’s precisely what we want!

Now, all of these things are important for education and scholarship that will enable us to flourish as human beings. In short, the Two Books Model makes the traditional liberal arts ideal a real possibility!

But that’s not all. The Two Books Model yields education and scholarship that glorifies God! There are many points to make here, as well; but again, I’ll mention just three or four.

(a) First, the Two Books Model recognizes the absolute authority of Jesus over every area of life, including the life of the mind. That’s a non-negotiable for Christians!

(b) Second, scholarship and education done on the Two Books Model accord with the way things really are in our world, working from a sound, transcendent reference point (i.e. God) to come to some significant knowledge and understanding of the whole of reality. Real knowledge that begins with God (which is what academic work according to TBM recognizes) glorifies God.

(c) Third, and less abstractly, the Two Books Model gives us a sound foundation for responsible thinking and living. There’s a sound, transcendent, normative reference point by which to critically discern truth from error, goodness from evil, and so forth.

Let’s briefly take a side road and consider a likely objection. Some might be concerned that the Two Books Model that I’m promoting leaves students unequipped to deal with the world we live in today – that it encourages people to keep their heads in the sand and yields a naïve and narrow-minded way of thinking. What’s really needed in education is wide exposure to the many perspectives and other kinds of diversity found in our world.

Here’s my brief reply:

(1) First, I would deny that the Two Books proposal is narrow-minded. I think Gene Veith has put it very well.

“I would argue that it is the secularists who have narrow-minded ideologies that inhibit education in its fullness, that Christianity is so comprehensive, so complex and nuanced and so much bigger than humanly-devised ideologies that it can serve as an educational framework for the whole range of learning.”[1]

But what about the point about sheltering students from diversity?

(2) There’s nothing about the Two Books Model that prohibits or discourages exposure to diversity of all kinds, including diversity of religious and worldview perspectives. In fact, exposure to various alternative perspectives is quite important, and welcome in the TBM.

(3) But mere exposure to diverse viewpoints, lifestyles, etc., without critical assessment and engagement, is irresponsible. It’s irresponsible in at least two ways. (a) Mere uncritical exposure to a plurality of views leads to confusion, shallowness, and personal fragmentation or disintegration. That’s precisely what we see to be the result of much higher education today – a result that’s totally inconsistent with the traditional liberal arts vision. (b) Provision of uncritical exposure to a wide range of diverse ideas and values would be bad enough were all such diversity innocuous. But not all diversity is legitimate or good, worthy of acceptance and celebration. Some differences are grounded in falsehood and/or sin. Consequently, mere exposure isn’t acceptable.

What an education in reading the Two Books can and should do is give students a foundation and methods to critically assess various viewpoints, lifestyles, etc. In other words, a Two Books Model of education can give students tools for robust critical and redemptive engagement of culture – tools that will enable them to navigate successfully through the foggy maze of our very complex world and to help clear away that fog for others, too.

(d) Back to the main road: I want to mention one more way in which the Two Books Model is glorifying to God, and this is my favorite (but also the most convicting to me personally). With the Two Books Model, the study of nature is free to lead to the sorts of worship and gratitude that it should, according to Scripture. (Remember, for example, Romans 1:18 ff.) In fact, it will encourage such!

John Calvin, in the opening of his commentary on Genesis, has this to say about studying the Book of Nature:

Men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence. Both labor in vain. To be so occupied in the investigation of the secrets of nature, as never to turn the eyes to its Author, is a most perverted study; and to enjoy everything in nature without acknowledging the Author of the benefit, is the basest ingratitude.[2]

Calvin, himself a great champion of the liberal arts, was right. We tend to fall off the horse one direction or the other – we either restrict our study of nature in such a way as to seal it off from the most significant parts of the story, or we fail to pay due attention to nature in our thinking about the most important things.

If we’re doing good work in the humanities and sciences, rightly using our minds/reason, the result should be more constant and passionate adoration of the Creator and Lord over all and an ever-growing sense of gratitude to Him for His many good gifts to us. Chemistry and biology are never just dealing with the natural. History and philosophy are never just dealing with the natural. Psychology and sociology are never just dealing with the natural. We’re always growing in our knowledge of the world and God, and of God and the world in relation to one another. And the natural result will be praise and thanksgiving. After all, we’re not merely homo sapiens (thinkers), but even more fundamentally, we are homo adorans (worshippers, adorers). All of us are, at the core of our beings, religious. So for our academic efforts to express and issue in worship is precisely as it ought to be.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, wouldn’t it be wonderful to be a scholarly community in which doxology – worship of the living God, rather than worship of the creature – is a frequent and normal response and consequence of learning?! Know what? That is really possible when genuine Christian liberal arts education is taking place! That’s really possible where a Two Books Model of education is practiced – where there is self-conscious effort to integrate what we know from Scripture with what we learn from other sources – i.e. from the Book of Nature.

Faith-Learning Integration

What I’ve been talking about in very general terms is the integration of faith and learning. What exactly is integration? Dr. Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, defines it as a “process of apprehension and correlation.”[3] I like that. Faith-learning integration is

· a process – an on-going process engaged in by faithful professors and students

· a process of

o apprehension – discovery of truths, rational justification for theories, etc., from our reading of the Two Books

o correlation – seeing how truths and ideas discovered in our reading of the Two Books fit together

Of course, our unifying center of gravity for our work will be the Christian worldview – i.e. the worldview that emerges from the pages of Scripture.

What’s the aim of this process? The aim is an accurate and unified view of the whole of reality that will enable us to flourish as human beings – to be, not just all that we can be, but all that we ought to be, all that God intends for us to be.

Now, there’s an awful lot more to talk about concerning the Two Books Academic Model and faith-learning integration. I think probably the best we can do here today is make two or three general points about the sorts of things involved in getting this enterprise going in earnest.

Where do we begin?

The place to begin, I think, is to check our attitudes about scholarship and teaching:

Am I ready and willing to love God with and through my academic work?

Am I committed to serving Christ by His grace, and no matter what, in my scholarship and teaching or learning?

If we are so committed to Christ, then naturally we’ll begin to seriously consider another question:

What does the fact that Jesus is Lord have to do with work in my discipline?

Once we start seriously wrestling with this core issue, we realize that we have to critically consider the foundational assumptions and methods that govern work in our particular disciplines.

And then there are other basic sorts of questions:

What does God say in Scripture that is pertinent to my area of inquiry?

How do certain theories in my discipline comport with what God has revealed in Scripture?

What do certain particular findings in my discipline contribute to the development of a more accurate and complete Christian worldview?

Asking such questions as these, and others as well, would constitute a start, at least, in the direction of carrying out the academic enterprise in terms of the Two Books Model.

Bottom line, the Christian academic is called to labor for the redemption of thought in his or her discipline, gratefully embracing and using what’s good and true from even the non-Christian’s work, critically revising or reconstructing those aspects of the discipline that are not sound, and building from there.

It’s hard work – time-consuming and messy[4] – but richly rewarding if done faithfully and well. It will involve critical engagement both within particular disciplines and across the disciplines. Every Christian academic must be something of a theologian. Every Christian academic must be in critical dialog with a wide array of fellow truth-seekers. And there’s much more beside. So it involves a lot of work.

Is it worth it? Absolutely! Do we who are Christians have an option really? No, not if we’re to be faithful! The question we have to answer is this: Which are we more concerned with?

• Arriving at Truth and Knowledge? Or playing a certain very popular kind of game?
• Faithfulness to Christ in our academic vocation? Or faithfulness to a set of rules made by those whose thinking is essentially non-Christian?

I suggest that the Two Books Model provides a much more promising approach than the mainstream Secularistic Academic Model if we’re really serious about our academic calling.

Conclusion: Called to Be Faithful

In conclusion, I want to say something about the fact that what I’m promoting here is clearly different from the philosophy of scholarship and education embodied in the mainstream academy. It’s true: this approach is profoundly counter-cultural. But Christians need to be careful here. As Nicholas Wolterstorff has aptly put it, “One’s goal as a Christian scholar is not to be different, but to be faithful.”[5] That’s an important point. That’s been the motivating issue for me throughout this talk. We’re called to be faithful, first and foremost. Now, sometimes that will mean being different – going against the currents of mainstream secularistic scholarship. That in turn could well mean being ignored, or snubbed, or even laughed at by our secularist counterparts. But being different is not the aim. Being faithful to Christ is the aim, and if that entails being different, so be it.

May our great Creator and Redeemer give all of us at Erskine College the grace and courage to be faithful in our calling as students of both of His great Books – no matter what the cost to us – for His glory and for our greater joy in Him!

© 2007 by John C. Wingard, Jr., Erskine College