Chapter One - Introduction - The Meaning and Practice of the Integration of Faith and Learning

2

Copyright © 2012 Daniel J. Ribera

The Meaning and Practice of the Integration of Faith and Learning

Daniel J. Ribera

Seattle Pacific University

School of Education

Seattle, Washington

2012

Arthur Ellis, Ed.D., Dissertation Committee Chairperson

Rick Eigenbrood, Ph.D.

Cher Edwards, Ph.D.

3


Chapter One

Introduction

Purpose and Significance of the Study

A distinctive of private religious schooling is the opportunity to integrate faith and

learning in the school curriculum, or perhaps (according to one theological/philosophical

construct) it is to recognize how faith is already an integral part of all learning, even all of

life. Were it not for the religious perspective, faith-based schools might look the same as

many public and private non-sectarian schools. The integration of faith and learning is an

essential ingredient that makes religious schools what they are.

There are philosophical variations as to how schools articulate the relationship of

faith and learning. In practice the differences may be even more pronounced. It is easy

and common for a religious school to state that all aspects of the school program are

conducted on the foundation of and infused with a particular faith or religious worldview.

It is quite another thing to articulate a clear and cogent understanding of what that

actually means. Burton and Nwosu (2002) agreed when they wrote that “everyone talks

about the importance of [the integration of faith and learning], but few persons describe

what it is or how to do it” (p. 3).

The purpose of this study is to explore the distinctiveness of the Christian school,

specifically as expressed in the phrase, “the integration of faith and learning (IFL),” and

to discover how experienced teachers understand the meaning of IFL and actually see

their faith integrated in practice in the classroom.

4


Defining Faith-Based Schools

Christian school terminology. A word, early on, regarding my convention for

referring to and labeling Christian schools may be helpful. Throughout this investigation

I have studied and written about “Christian schools.” Sometimes I use the expressions

“faith-based school,” or “religious school.” Though these three expressions are not

synonymous, the reader need not wonder if I am referring to more than one entity. First,

the cases I have chosen are all within the broad Christian community, so according to my

labeling convention they are all Christian schools. I have distinguished between

denominations and school affiliations in my recruitment and in reporting to indicate

diversity, but there was no intention or attempt to create a scientific sampling for a

comparative study.

Second, all these schools may also be called “faith-based” or “religious” schools.

Though these two terms have broader meaning and different connotations than the term

“Christian school,” the terms do accurately describe Christian schools. In a few limited

instances I have made reference to a Muslim school and to a Jewish school. These are

also faith-based and religious schools, though not Christian. The literature that included

these two institutions provided useful information about faith-based and religious schools

that applied equally to the narrower category of Christian schooling and so I chose to use

those non-Christian examples. Some of what I have said in this study about Christian

schools may apply to other faith-based and religious schools, but I will leave it to others

to either replicate this research or apply this study to non-Christian schools.

5


The terms “faith-based” or “religious” are also related to the term “Christian.” I

use the term “faith-based” as a description of the epistemology of a person or

organization. Faith speaks of what people know or believe about God, man, etc. and their

reasons for believing as they do. Faith includes creeds and confessions, whether formal

or informal. When I use the term “faith-based school” I am thinking about a system of

beliefs that a person adheres to or a school adopts. This is a fair and accurate label for the

Christian schools that are included in my study since they are all, by definition, faith-

based schools. All the schools represented in this study adhere to systems of belief that

fit into a definition of Christian.

I use the term “religious” as a cultural term that refers to the cults of observance

or practice of people of faith. People who hold to systems of belief follow religious

practices. Religious practices serve many functions, including but not limited to,

identifying with a community, engaging in worship, seeking the divine, and exercising

devotion, both individually and corporately. Any further survey of religious practices

goes beyond my scope or purpose, though my participants described many examples of

what may be called religious practices within their schools. When I use the term

“religious school,” I am thinking about schools that include religious practice as part of

their school culture. This is a fair and accurate label for the Christian schools that are

included in my study since they all incorporate religious practice in some form. All the

schools represented in this study exercise their faith with religious practices that fit into

the definition of Christian.

Historical background. Questions about the meaning and practice of IFL are

rooted deeply in the history of faith-based schooling. The partnership of faith and

6


learning is an old one. In the ancient Near East some texts served legal purposes, others

were of historic significance, while many texts were educational and were designed to

pass on the myths and legends of the culture to the next generation (Pritchard, 1950;

Thomas, 1958). Moses taught the Israelites the story of היהו1 and instructed the people

that the law of God was to be memorized, discussed, and impressed on their children (see

Deuteronomy 6:1-9). Among the Chaldeans, the Babylonian Epic of Creation was

recited annually on the fourth day of the New Year’s festival (Thomas, 1958). In

answering the question “And what shall be their education?” Plato argued in his Republic

that only literature that presents truthful images of the gods shall be allowed. Regarding

non-conforming texts he wrote, “Neither shall we allow teachers to make use of them in

the instruction of the young” (Plato, n.d., p. 287).

The following survey shows the importance of IFL, first historically in the

establishment of European and American schooling, then through an important debate

concerning the Common School in America, and finally today in the various practices

found within faith-based schools. The impact of the 16th

century Reformation, Counter-

Reformation, and the subsequent Anabaptist movement laid the foundation for the close

relationship between religion and schooling in the centuries that followed (Estep, 1996;

Megevney, 1903; San Mateo & Tangco, 2003). The modern school is especially indebted

to the Reformation for its existence (Gangel & Benson, 1983; Spitz & Tinsley, 1995). In

the 16th century, Martin Luther published an open letter, “to the councilmen of all cities

in Germany that they establish and maintain Christian Schools” (Luther, 1524). The city

1 The Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH is read Yahweh or Jehovah, but is commonly translated as LORD in

English bibles.

7


councilors apparently followed his admonition, for six years later Luther delivered a

sermon, this time directed to the citizenry within those cities “on keeping children in

school.” In this sermon, Luther equated the founding of a school with countering the

devil, saying, “But praise and thanks be to God, who has long since countered the devil’s

intentions and put it into the heart of an honorable and wise council to found and equip

such a splendid and excellent school” (Luther, 1530, p. 4). Further, Luther (1530)

encouraged the community:

For this reason I hope that the citizens will recognize the fidelity and love of their

lords, and help earnestly to support this work by keeping their children in school,

since without cost to themselves their children are so bountifully and diligently

cared for, with everything provided for them. (p. 4)

While the Lutheran Reformation influenced the spread of Christian schools in

Germany and northern Europe, John Calvin and his followers had a similar influence in

Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scotland. In Geneva, Calvin founded publically-

funded schools, with government enforced attendance, with the intention to produce

literate, bible-reading citizens (Gutek, 2001a, 2001b).

In the 17th

and 18th

centuries Europeans and American colonists saw the

relationship between faith and learning encoded in both civil and ecclesiastical law. In

the Netherlands, the National Synod of 1618 and 1619, of Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk

(i.e., Netherlands Reformed Church) issued this Church Order: “Article 21—The

consistories everywhere shall see to it that there are good school teachers, not only to

teach the children reading, writing, languages, and the liberal arts, but also to instruct

them in godliness and in the Catechism” (Netherlands Reformed Church, 1619, p. 4).

8


Likewise, English Puritanism imported to the New World a similar motivation for

establishing faith-based schools. Massachusetts’ Old Deluder Satan Law of 1647, started

with these words, “It being one chief project of that old deluder Satan to keep men from

the knowledge of the Scriptures” (Massachusetts’ Old Deluder Satan Law, 1647/2001, p.

8). With this chief end in mind, Massachusetts established their publically-funded

schools. Students who learn to read could study the scriptures and thus participate in

religious services, a most important goal to those colonists (Gutek, 2001a, 2001b;

Morgan, 1986). In addition, those young readers would follow courses of study

unabashedly informed by the Puritan faith. The New England Primer included many

entries similar to this one for the letter W: “Whales in the Sea, God’s voice Obey” (The

New England Primer, 1727/2001, p. 15). Not great poetry perhaps, but it carries a clear

message that whatever was to be learned about the creation would be referenced back to

the Creator.

Early educational movements in America had roots in the faith life of the

community (Massachusetts’ Old Deluder Satan Law, 1647/2001; Morgan, 1986). From

the stated intention to convert native peoples and baptize slaves, to passing laws designed

to counter the deceptions of Satan through publicly funded schools, to publishing texts

complete with catechisms, the evidence points to schooling that was quite comfortable

with its religious heritage and association (Jernegan, 1916; Northwest Ordinance, 1787;

Massachusetts’ Old Deluder Satan Act, 1647). “Religion, morality, and knowledge being

necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and means of

education shall forever be encouraged,” said the Northwest Ordinance as Americans

9


moved west of the Ohio River (United States Congress, 1787/2001, p. 46; Urban &

Wagoner, 2004, pp. 77-78).

However, a growing rationalism during the Enlightenment (17th

and 18th

centuries)

began to penetrate both Church and State. Modernism, led by Descartes (1596-1650)

(Hooker, 1996), and solidified by Kant (1724-1804) (Knight, 1989; Kok, 1998;

Schneewind, 2002), drove a wedge between knowledge based upon rationalism and

knowledge dependent upon revelation and infused with faith. The following historical

examples illustrate that the result in Europe was secessions of the faithful from apostate

churches and mass emigrations of believers seeking a place where they could worship

freely and educate their children with integrity; while the result in the New World was a

struggle to define the place of religion in education.

In 1834, the Afscheiding, or Separation, occurred in the Netherlands where the

Dutch watched the State church drift from its faithfulness to Calvinism. A specific

concern was that the State church schools were becoming neutral in matters of religion.

As Seceders were ill-treated at home, emigration became a viable option so, in 1846,

Rev. Albertus C. van Raalte led a group of Seceders to the New World. This group

established a colony at Holland, Michigan, complete with its own churches and parochial

schools and thus began the Christian Reformed Church. Within 45 years of its founding,

control of these schools shifted from the Christian Reformed denomination to parent

societies, though in many communities the schools and churches are still closely related

(Bratt, 1984; Hyde, 2005; Oppewal & DeBoer, 1984; Van Brummelen, 1986).

Similarly in 1838, in reaction to a growing rationalism in the Saxon Church,

some 600 Lutherans emigrated from Germany to the United States looking for a place to

10


practice their faith (Gieseler, 1880; Lueker, Poellot, & Jackson, 2000). Soon after

arriving in the United States, German Evangelical Lutherans determined to establish their

own parochial schools. The decision was recorded thus, “All of the Synod's pastors are

to establish schools in their congregations, and, if necessary, function as teacher”

(Diefenthaler, 1984; The German Evangelical-Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and

Other States, 1847, p. 6).

In the 1830s and 1840s, William Miller, a well-known Baptist preacher in

America, lectured on the literal soon second advent (or return) of Christ. Scores of

believers within the so-called “Christian Connection” churches and many of its ministers

became "Adventist." In 1844, the Seventh Day Adventist church was founded on

principles of strong biblical authority and literal interpretation of scripture (Seventh Day

Adventist Church, 2011). By 1853, the first Seventh-Day Adventist Schools opened in

New York State (Knight, 1984; Reynolds, 1986). In the 1850s and 1860s primary

education for children was advocated by Adventists. The early 1870s saw the newly

budding Adventist Church begin to develop a denominationally based school system.

The Adventist interests in propagating education was founded upon the philosophy that

students should be educated to use their God-given capacities to become individuals of

principle, qualified for any position of life. Since the early days Adventists have

embraced the philosophy that education should be redemptive in nature, for the purpose

of restoring human beings to the image of God, our Creator (Greenleaf, 2005; Knight,

1984, 2000, 2001).

The foregoing examples of European and American schooling illustrate the

precedent-setting and vital historic bond between faith and learning, between religion and

11


education in American education (Arthur, Gearon, & Sears, 2010; Clouser, 1991;

Durkheim, 1915). The introduction in the United States of faith-based schools by

immigrants and the establishment of religiously-infused Common schools eventually led

to a dilemma for people of faith in the context of public and private schools and

underscored the importance of the question of what it means to integrate faith and

learning.

This dilemma grew out of an interpretation and application of the Constitution of

the United States that sought to prevent the establishment of religion through public

funding on the one hand2 and the actual practice of the founders of the Common School

movement who seemed comfortable with the establishment of publicly funded schools

that were infused with religion, on the other hand. “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” said

the First Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1791 (United States Congress, 1791),

yet by 1848, Horace Mann, secretary of education in Massachusetts, was defending the

Common School from the charge that it was “irreligious,” “anti-Christian,” or “un-

Christian” (Mann, 1848/1957, 1848/2001, p. 58).

The Common School was for all children, publically funded for the common

good, and as interpreted by the courts, not for religious purposes. The establishment of

religion violated the consciences of those who held contrary beliefs. Yet, the Bible, the

primary text of the Christian religion, was used in the Common School. So, it was on this

2 For examples of several later Supreme Court cases that served to interpret the First Amendment as applied

to faith and learning, see: McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), or Engel v. Vitale (1962), or Abington

School District v. Schempp (1963)

12


basis that Mann maintained the schools were not anti-Christian or irreligious (Mann,

1848/1957, 1848/2001).

The ensuing debate illustrates the question of the meaning and practice of IFL. In

an effort to counter the opposition Mann received from rival parochial and sectarian

schools he described the important place of scripture in the Common School curriculum.

Further, he attempted to balance the religious content with assurances that a particular

sect would not proselytize the children. He argued that a person educated in the Common

School would be enabled to be his own judge and choose his own religious obligations.

Even as Mann defended his schools against the charge of being irreligious and anti-

Christian, he claimed they were not sectarian to the degree that the student would be

indoctrinated under compulsion, or pressured to join this or that denomination (Cremin,

1957). Fraser (1999) called this “lowest-common-denominator Christianity” (p. 6).

Mann did not seem to recognize that his school system would seem sectarian and

indoctrinating to groups, such as, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, all whom he had

referenced as examples (Cremin, 1957; Fraser, 2001; Urban & Wagoner, 2004).

Mann may have been aware that in New York, in 1840, Catholics had petitioned

for a share of the Common School fund (Hughes, 1840/2001). Based on Mann’s

accounts of the opposition he experienced, similar movements were afoot in

Massachusetts, where Mann served on the Board of Education. In New York City,

Catholics responded concerning the publicly funded school system, asserting that it was

not “irreligious” as some had charged concerning Massachusetts schools, but neither was

it neutral or benign as Mann would have them believe. The public schools of New York

were Protestant in nature, so to one of Catholic faith that meant un-Catholic, if not anti-

13


Catholic. New York City Public Schools were viewed as a Protestant monopoly (Fraser,

2001, p. 50-51; Hughes, 1840/2001). If, on the one hand, it could be shown that the

schools were non-sectarian (some would say this is synonymous with non-religious),

then, the Catholics maintained, the Common schools favored infidelity. If, on the other

hand, religion was taught in the Common schools, and that religion was of the Protestant

variety, this too was unacceptable. The system was either Protestant and thus anti-

Catholic or it was non-sectarian and thus non-religious, excluding all Christians including

Catholics; either way Catholics parents were not happy that their children were not

receiving the religious education they desired (Hughes, 1840/2001; Hunt & Kunkel,

1984; Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884/2001).

The Catholics of New York insisted that there was no such thing as a non-

sectarian or neutral faith (Fraser, 2001, p. 51). Yet they in their turn proposed that if they

could share in a portion of the Common School fund “the public may then be assured that

the money will not be applied to the support of the Catholic religion” (Hughes,

1840/2001, p. 79). This proposed compromise on the part of the Catholics of 1840,

suggests one model for IFL, one where the curriculum may be divided between

religiously neutral or secular material on the one hand and religious subjects on the other.

In 1884, 44 years after the Roman Catholic petition in New York City, Catholics

in Baltimore were advised to establish their own schools for Catholic education. Bishop

John Carroll proclaimed to the faithful, “That near every church a parish school, where

one does not yet exist, is to be built,” and “That all Catholic parents should be bound to

send their children to the parish school” (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884/

2001, p. 145).

14


More than a century after the aforementioned petition, in 1965, the II Vatican

Council confirmed the position that the Catholic Church would not delegate the task of

education to the public schools. After the family (“…the family is the first school…”)

the Declaration on Christian Education (Pope Paul VI, 1965) said:

Finally, in a special way, the duty of educating belongs to the Church, not merely

because she must be recognized as a human society capable of educating, but

especially because she has the responsibility of announcing the way of salvation

to all men, of communicating the life of Christ to those who believe, and, in her

unfailing solicitude, of assisting men to be able to come to the fullness of life. (p.

3)

In summary, while Irish Catholics were immigrating to the United States, (by

1847, as the Great Famine decimated Ireland, there were 37,000 Irish in Boston alone),

(Johnston, n.d.) and Horace Mann was preparing his last report to the Board of Education

of Massachusetts defending the Common Schools from the charge of being irreligious

(Cremin, 1957), Dutch Seceders were leaving the Netherlands in protest over “neutral”

state-controlled schools (Bratt, 1984; Hyde, 2005; Oppewal & DeBoer, 1984; Van

Brummelen, 1986), Lutherans were fleeing the growing rationalism in the German

church (Diefenthaler, 1984; The German Evangelical-Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio

And Other States, 1847), and Adventists were forming schools around their own

literalistic doctrine (Greenleaf, 2005; Knight, 1984, 2000, 2001). All of these sought

schools that taught a curriculum within a worldview that was consistent with their faith

and church.

15


The desire for faith-centered schooling continues to this day. The U.S.

Department of Education through the National Center for Education Statistics tracks

more than 19 religious organizations with which private K-12 schools are affiliated (U.S.

Department of Education, n.d.) (see Appendix A). In addition, individuals and

institutions identify with some 29 denominations and religious sects (U.S. Department of

Education, n.d.) (see Appendix B for Religious Affiliations of Faith-Based Schools).

Locally, as shown in Table 1, the Washington Federation of Independent Schools

(Washington Federation of Independent Schools, n.d.) serves schools affiliated with nine

religious organizations and denominations.

Table 1

Religious school affiliations in Washington

Affiliate Organizations

Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI)

Christian Schools International (CSI)

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)

Friends Council on Education (FCE)

National Association of Episcopal Schools (NAES)

National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) and local Catholic Dioceses

National Christian School Association (NCSA)

Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America (SDA) and local conferences

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.

Source: Washington Federation of Independent Schools

16


This historical survey indicates the significance of this study to the number of

teachers, parents and students who choose faith-based schools. In addition, it illustrates

the on-going need to define the expression “the integration of faith and learning,” and to

discover how the practice of integration distinguishes faith-based schools from their

public and non-religious private counterparts.

Anecdotal Examples: Religious Schools Integrating Faith

Beyond the historical precedent and the demand for faith-based schools, it is

important to see how schools actually practice IFL. A review of select religious schools

provides fruitful examples of how IFL is practiced. How the curriculum was divided

(i.e., general studies and religious studies), and who teaches in the school (i.e., lay

teachers or religious teachers) may illustrate whether a school integrates faith in the

classroom or keeps it separate in practical terms. The following survey of Catholic,

Jewish, Hutterite, Lutheran, Evangelical Christian, and Dutch Calvinist schools is based

on personal field observations, informal conversations with teachers, administrators, and

clergy, and examination of school websites.

In Catholic schools, the course of study was general in nature, with additional

religious classes for preparation in the catechism for first communion, and participation

in liturgy and sacraments. Catholic schools hire both religious teachers (e.g., nuns,

priests, or monks) and lay teachers. Instructors in the earliest Catholic schools were

teachers from religious orders. Over time lay teachers were added, out of necessity, due

to the shortage of religious teachers. Following the II Vatican Council, lay teachers in

Catholic schools became more numerous than religious teachers (Jones, 2003). From

1968 to 1982, the number of religious teachers decreased from 57% to 26%, while lay

17


teachers increased from 43% to 74 % (National Catholic Education Association, 1982).

In 2010, it was reported that 96.8 % of teachers in Catholic schools are lay teachers, and

slightly more than 3% are teachers in religious vocation (National Catholic Education

Association, 2010). Lay and religious teachers may be assigned to teach any subject,

whether general studies or religious. Yet, in spite of this equity in teacher hiring, faith is

not necessarily infused in the teaching of the general studies. One recalls the Catholic

Church, in 1840, proposing an arrangement for sharing the Common School fund, yet not

for the support of the religious curriculum (Hughes, 1840/2001, p. 79). The implication

of that proposal was that the general curriculum could be taught in a religiously neutral

manner, and in that way religion would not be supported by public funds (Hughes,

1840/2001).

In another example, an Orthodox Jewish high school divides its course of study

between general studies (about 60% of the school week), and Judaic studies (about 40%

of the school week). General studies includes math, science, social studies, and language

arts, while Judaic studies includes Torah, Prophets, Talmud and Hebrew language. This

school distinguishes between religious teachers (about a third of the faculty were Rabbis)

and lay teachers (two thirds of the faculty). Rabbis alone are hired to teach Judaic

studies, while lay teachers are hired to teach the general studies. The Orthodox Jewish

high school provides an example of a line drawn between general studies and religious

studies and religious and lay faculty.

Hutterite colonies provide an additional example of the relationship between faith

and learning in a religious school. The children of Hutterites, a separatist group related to

the Anabaptists of Germany (cf., Mennonites and Amish) (Estep, 1996), attend school in

18


a one-room schoolhouse, which follows a general course of study. The Hutterites, who

are a strict people in regard to their religious practice, see no conflict hiring an outside,

non-religious teacher to instruct their children in the general studies. Religious education

and German education takes place in the home and in Sunday school, taught by Hutterite

members. Colonies of Hutterian Brethren have no ordained clergy per se. The elders of

the colony provide pastoral and religious leadership in the community and parents

provide religious teaching for their families. However, in regard to schooling, the colony

hire a lay, state certified teacher, who, though a person with a Christian commitment, is

not a Hutterite, to conduct the school and teach a general curriculum. It is a surprise to

find Hutterites, who are otherwise separatists, permitting an outsider to educate their

children. The Hutterites view the general curriculum to be religiously neutral.

The curriculum in a Lutheran school is comprised of a general course of study

with religious components added on. Courses in the Bible are listed among the

requirements. In the seventh and eighth grades students are given catechetical

instruction. The various Lutheran denominations do have ordained clergy, but most

teachers in the Lutheran schools are lay teachers. The pastor of the sponsoring church

(Lutheran schools are parochial) teaches classes from time to time to provide religious

instruction, and is the exclusive teacher of the seventh and eighth graders catechism class.

Clergy are often used for the purpose of teaching religious content.

Examples from the Evangelical Christian community found schools that adopt

curriculum from Christian publishers in their effort to integrate faith and learning.

Publishers like Bob Jones University Press, Abeka Books, Accelerated Christian

Education, and the Association of Christian Schools International publish “Christian”

19


curriculum in all subjects for non-denominational, parochial or independent Christian

schools. There is a strong moralistic and nationalistic flavor to these texts. Bible

curriculum often include studies of church and Biblical history, Bible survey courses, and

Christian character studies (Givens, 1996). Teachers in evangelical Christian day schools

are typically laypersons. The distinction between clergy and lay does not generally apply

to teaching staff in most Evangelical schools. Although ordained ministers may teach at

the K-12 level, that is the exception rather than the rule. Protestants speak of the

priesthood of all believers, a concept derived from I Peter 2:93, in order to express the

sacred calling of all believers, and the value of their work. Rather than using religious

staff evangelical Christian schools may use Christian publishers as their faith and

learning integrator.

As a final example, schools in the Reformed tradition base their program on the

theological and philosophical constructs of John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, Herman

Bavinck, and other Dutch Calvinist theorists. One of the hallmarks of Reformed thinking

is the idea that all truth is God’s truth (Gaebelein, 1968; Kuyper, 1961, 1998). Thus, in

Calvinist Dutch schools the goal is to create a curriculum in which there is no distinction

between religious knowledge and secular knowledge. Academic subjects included

Reading, Language Arts, Modern Language, Science, Social Studies, Music, Art,

Physical Education, and various Bible and religious content courses. The curriculum

calls for all subjects to be taught with academic integrity, including Bible, but that all

subjects are revelatory of the Creator, including those subjects commonly labeled in

3 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you

may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (I Peter 2:9,

English Standard Version, 2001)

20


religious school literature as general studies (Gaebelein, 1968). Countering the dualist

tendency to divide the curriculum between the sacred and the secular in the Christian

school, Abraham Kuyper, in his inaugural address at the opening of the Free University

of Amsterdam, which he founded in 1880, set the tone for the Dutch Calvinist tradition,

"There is not an inch in the entire domain of our human life of which Christ, who is

sovereign of all, does not proclaim 'Mine!'" (Kuyper, 1998, p. 488). In this simple but

powerful assertion Kuyper summarized his worldview and the religious presupposition of

the Dutch Calvinist schools.

Research Questions

Given the history of faith-based schooling in the United States, and the

importance for those schools to define faith in learning, the following questions provided

focus for this research project:

1. What are the distinctive qualities of the Christian School?

2. What does the expression, “the integration of faith and learning” mean to the

Christian school teacher?

3. How does a Christian school teacher integrate faith in the classroom? Or how

does a Christian school teacher practice IFL?

Defining Integration and Faith

An important movement in curriculum and instruction is the integration of the

school curriculum, that is, reversing the trend to treat subjects in isolation from each other

and allowing students and teachers to make important and significant connections (Beane

& Brodhagen, 2001; Ellis, 2005). This is equally true in the Christian school where

teachers seek to integrate faith and learning.

21


Integration and integrity share the common Latin root integrāre which means “To

put or bring together (parts or elements) so as to form one whole” (Integrate, 2012). Both

words carry the idea of making complete and undivided. The Oxford English Dictionary

defined “integration” as “The making up or composition of a whole by adding together or

combining the separate parts or elements; combination into an integral whole: a making

whole or entire.” The definition for integrity is “The condition of having no part or

element taken away or wanting; undivided or unbroken state; material wholeness,

completeness, entirety.”

The movement to integrate the curriculum in general is supported by the cognitive

theory that students learn best when they encounter ideas that are connected to one

another. Curricular integration moves beyond the traditional fragmented curriculum in

which subjects are artificially separated from one another, and instead students are

challenged to create meaning in the real world where things are richly inter-connected.

This approach is supported by a constructivist theory of meaning-making as well as

cognitive brain theory that maintains that the brain seeks patterns (Ellis, 2005).

Integrative studies are rooted in the work of Tyler (1949) who suggested that

integration is one of the processes for organizing learning experiences (p. 85). Piaget’s

cognitive processes of assimilation, accommodation and equilibrium are foundational to

Tyler’s work (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Tyler, 1949). Tyler referred to horizontal

relationships of curriculum experiences that allowed experiences to be unified in relation

to other elements of the curriculum (Tyler, 1949, p. 85). His goal was that individual

subjects would not be isolated from the rest of the subjects in a school. He described the

student as developing an increasingly unified view. Indeed, Piaget’s processes are only

22


possible as students are permitted to make connections, accommodate new data, reconcile

apparent contradictions, build and test theories, and arrive at a place of intellectual

integrity (Bruner, 1960; Dewey, 1938; Ornstein & Hunkins, 1998, p. 110).

Living out an integrated model in the classroom depends largely on the degree to

which an educator recognizes (believes) that faith and learning are related, and further is

able to articulate a cogent and cohesive integrated worldview. James Banks, Director of

the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington, presented an

interesting framework which is helpful when thinking about the meaning and practice of

curricula integration. Banks described four levels or approaches to integration that could

be practiced by teachers interested in integrating cultural diversity in their classrooms.

The four levels are: (1) the Contributions Approach, (2) the Additive Approach, (3) the

Transformation Approach, and (4) the Decision-making or the Social Action Approach.

Banks began at level one, with an approach to multicultural integration that

focuses on the observations of special anniversaries and events. This approach, which

Banks called the contributions approach, focuses especially on heroes and holidays, for

example, the celebrations of Martin Luther King Day, or Cinco de Mayo, or Women’s

History week. Yet, Banks asserted, the recognition of heroes and the observation of

holidays does not change the basic structure of the curriculum. This, Banks maintained,

represents a fragmented rather than an integrated curriculum. It was Banks’ goal to see

the curriculum transformed.

At level two, Banks described an approach to multicultural integration that

focuses on adding content, concepts, and themes to the curriculum. This approach, that

Banks called the additive approach, focuses on the addition of a book, a unit, or even a

23


course to the curriculum. Again, Banks’ assessment is that the basic structure, purposes,

and characteristics of the curriculum are left unchanged. In other words, the basic

assumptions and presuppositions of the dominant culture remain unchallenged. Banks

commented that at level two the curriculum remains fragmented.

Next, Banks described level three, at which point he said a paradigm shift takes

place. Banks called this the transformation approach to multicultural integration because

the basic purposes, structure, and characteristics of the curriculum change. Basic

assumptions and the status quo are challenged. This, according to Banks, represents a

fundamental change from the contributions and additive approaches. Students are

enabled to “view concepts, issues, themes, and problems from different perspectives and

points of view” (Banks, 1994b, p. 26).

Lastly, Banks introduced level four, or his decision-making and social action

approach to multicultural integration. This level of integration “extends the

transformative curriculum by enabling students to pursue projects and activities that

allow them to take personal, social, and civic actions related to the concepts, problems,

and issues they have studied” (Banks, 1994b, p. 27). At this level Banks’ vision is that

integration will be so internalized that not only will students’ perceptions be transformed,

but their choices will be impacted.

Banks’ insights have application beyond the multicultural curriculum, and in fact,

they may be usefully adopted by Christian school teachers. There are corollaries to each

of Banks’ levels and approaches in the task of integrating faith and learning. The

Christian school teacher is seeking to accomplish something on the same scale that Banks

is calling for in multicultural education.

24


In addition to pedagogical approaches to integration, it is useful to consider

theological and epistemological understandings of integration. Cornelius Van Til, in the

tradition of Abraham Kuyper and other Dutch Calvinists, presented such a framework

within which the question of IFL may be discussed and understood. Initially, Van Til’s

theory of knowledge addresses the issue of neutrality (Frame, 1976; Maffett & Dye,

1985; White, 1979).

Neutrality in education. Integration is related to the idea of neutrality in the

curriculum. Walford (2002) raised the issue of neutrality, questioning whether or not

individual disciplines, science for example, might be taught apart from the faith. Van

Brummelen wrote, “Education is always religious in the sense that it cannot but lead forth

according to our faith commitments and ideals” (Van Brummelen, 1988, p. 5). One team

of Christian educators in England contended that a science curriculum ought to be taught

in such a way as to integrate science into the story of creation, fall, and redemption

(Walford, 2002, p. 411), a common construct among Dutch Calvinist educators (Jaarsma,

1935; Jaarsma, 1953; Maffett & Dye, 1985; Oppewal, 1985; Wolters, 1985). Creation,

fall, and redemption provide a triadic perspective on school subjects. First, every subject

is viewed as a product of God’s creative activity. God’s world is good and is imbued

with God’s wisdom or law, that is, “the totality of God’s ordaining acts toward the

cosmos” (Wolters, 1985, p. 13). The study of school subjects is the study of God’s

creation. Second, this triad directs attention to the reality that the world is not as it ought

to be. In fact, the sin of Adam and Eve has impacted not only humanity, but the rest of

God’s creation and has introduced death, disease, destruction, pain, frustration, and

futility (Wolters, 1985). The fall is a way of understanding the brokenness of creation

25


observed in the study of school subjects. Finally, the third perspective in the triad

informs us that, though broken, the creation is not as it will be. Redemption speaks not

only of the salvation of God’s people but the renewal and recreation of God’s world

(Wolters, 1985). By considering school subjects from the three perspectives of creation,

fall, and redemption, it is understood that the curriculum is not religiously neutral, but is

connected with and informed by a deeply religious narrative.

The idea of neutrality in education is important because if some subjects are

religiously neutral then one has a dualistic framework where some school subjects fall

into an a-religious (or religiously-neutral) category and others into a religious (or

religiously-referenced) category. The effort to integrate the curriculum is an attempt to

move away from this dichotomy and toward a framework that finds either natural

connections or unity. An integrated curriculum emphasizes the “interdependence of

various areas of knowledge and attempts to transcend traditional boundaries” (Walford,

2002, p. 414).

Some consider the idea of neutrality and the separation between the spiritual and

the rational to have been founded in the Enlightenment (Knight, 1989; Kok, 1998).

Modern man divides knowledge into two categories: The objective, scientifically based

facts, and the subjective, faith-based beliefs. This dualism has deep roots found in the

writings of Immanuel Kant, who attempted to maintain human dignity and the freedom of

the will in regard to moral questions, described the noumenal (the real world in itself) and

phenomenal (the world that we experience through our senses) realms. The effect was

that scientific knowledge was viewed as testable, provable, and rational, while spiritual

26


knowledge, which was not open to sensory verification remained in the realm of personal

and subjective and could not be proven (Kant, 1958/1781; Schneewind, 2002).

Greene (1998) described the fragmented curriculum in spiritual terms: “Dualism

is present when we divide life into two parts, one of which is lived to the glory of God,

the other in service of something created” (Greene, 1998, p. 144). He explained, “The

problem with dualism is that it splits our lives into two parts. In our spiritual life, we

acknowledge and serve Christ. In our ordinary life, we… follow our own reasoning

power” (Greene, 1998, p. 145).

Reformed epistemology. Van Til’s theory of knowledge flows from his

understanding of man, his concept of antithesis (that is, a theistic worldview versus an

anti-theistic worldview) and his presuppositional apologetics (that is, the approach that

examines alternative presuppositions and asks which worldview best accounts for the

reality of human experience). Van Til (1990b) defined his theistic epistemology:

Education is implication into God’s interpretation. To think God’s thoughts after

him, to dedicate the universe to its Maker, and to be the vice-regent of the Ruler

of all things: this is man’s task. Man is prophet, priest and king. It is this view of

education that is involved in and demanded by the idea of creation. (p. 44)

For the Christian school teacher the consequence of Van Til’s ideas is that faith is

integral with learning throughout the curriculum. Religious education is not

compartmentalized apart from the remaining subjects in a sacred/secular dichotomy. All

learning points to God. No fact is neutral with regard to its religious content. That is,

there is not a fact that does not point to the One whose Word created it and sustains it.

Van Til wrote about the place of religious instruction in the school curriculum, “To be

27


conscious of these distinctions does not mean that we must spend much more time on the

direct teaching of religion than on teaching other matters. If we teach religion indirectly,

everywhere and always, we may need less time to teach religion directly” (Van Til,

1990a, p. 4).

Bruner’s tenets. Complementing Van Til’s approach, Bruner (1996) presented

an interesting framework through which the idea of neutrality may be understood. He

suggested that it is the interaction between the cultural context and the mind of the

learner that influences the making of meaning (Bruner, 1996).

Bruner’s perspectival tenet relates to meaning making. Bruner seemed to agree

with Van Til that there are no un-interpreted facts. Van Til’s way of expressing this was

to say, “There are no ‘brute facts’ i.e., facts un-interpreted by God as well as by man”

(Van Til, 1941/1955b). According to Van Til all facts are interpreted, first by God, then

by man. Though Bruner did not go so far, his construct supports Van Til’s view. His

interest was in the interaction between the mind and culture. He wrote, “The meaning of

any fact, or encounter is relative to the perspective or frame of reference in terms of

which it is construed” (Bruner, 1996, p.13). According to Bruner, meaning is not

universal and may change, nor is it objective. “Nothing is culture free” (Bruner, 1996, p.

14). For Van Til one aspect of the cultural context or frame of reference is the beliefs

that inform one’s meaning making. “Looking at the world through the ‘spectacles’ of

God’s Word, we are able to understand the world and our place in it from God’s

perspective” Van Til, 1979, p. 117).

In addition, according to Bruner, meaning making is constrained by the nature of

human mental functioning, and the limits of symbolic systems. He called this the

28


constraints tenet (Bruner, 1996). The constraints tenet modifies the perspectival tenet.

An example he gives of the constraints tenet is our experience of the limits of time and

space. Regardless how Kant (1781/1958) and others have suggested that time and space

were mental constructs; we nevertheless experience these limits every moment. Human

language is another form of constraint that we experience in our meaning making.

Language has limits and these limits confine what we can express and where we can go

in our understanding (Bruner, 1996).

Religious educators would agree with Bruner that man is subject to these

constraints in his understanding of the universe. A Christian educator would say that

human understanding, or meaning making, is limited additionally by our human

finiteness and our fallenness or sinfulness as a race. Regarding our finiteness, the

creature will never understand the universe as the Creator understands His own creation.

We are limited as created beings. Though we are God’s image bearers, yet we are not

omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. In addition, those who recognize a historic fall

into sin would add that imperfection to the constraints we experience as a race. Though

finite humans will never have ultimate understanding; fallen persons are certain to have

impaired and corrupted understanding. At creation, humanity’s understanding was

merely limited, at the fall the understanding was twisted (Wolters, 1985).

Wolters (1985) discussed the impact of sin on the creation and described how

structurally the creation is unified. All creation, he said, came into being by the Word of

God; all creation is revelatory of the Creator; all creation was created good. There are

not two ‘stories’ as per Aquinas, or two kinds of knowledge as per Kant, or the

sacred/secular distinction as per Protestant Evangelicals. However, in terms of

29


directionality all of creation is distorted by the fall (Knight, 1989; Kok, 1998; Wolters,

1985).

Faith and reason. Van Til’s understanding of the relationship of faith and reason

follows from his theory of knowledge. Faith precedes reason, claimed Van Til, and in

this way he asserted that true reason is established. Van Til echoed the words of Anselm

of Canterbury, “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so

that I can understand. For I believe this too, that ‘unless I believe I shall not

understand.’4” “Credo ut intelligam - I believe in order that I may understand,” is the

ancient maxim that Van Til adopted for his own. He presupposed the supernatural

revelation of God’s Word as providing the only basis for the entire educational enterprise.

“Human beings,” he wrote, “must presuppose the self-attesting triune God in all their

thinking. Faith in God precedes understanding everything else” (Van Til, 1955a).

Philosophical antithesis. In Van Til’s worldview there is an antithesis in the way

a theist and an anti-theist5 understand the world. From his perspective a person is either a

believer in the God of the bible or an unbeliever. Thus the perception of each person, he

says, is colored by his or her beliefs (Van Til, 1955a, 1990a, n.d.).

According to Van Til, “everything is dark unless the current of God’s revelation is

turned on” (Van Til, 1990a, p. 4). Van Til claims, “We cannot even see any facts without

this light” (Van Til, 1990a, p. 4). Elsewhere, Van Til accepts that all people have

knowledge through general revelation, but he still insists that true knowledge of anything

is only possible as it is placed into right relationship with its maker. Here he expresses

4 Anselm may be paraphrasing Isaiah 7:9, which says, “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be

established” (King James Version, 1611). 5 Van Til does not use the terms atheist or agnostic, since he admits no suggestion of neutrality. He says a

person is either for God or against Him.

30


that idea, “Not a single fact can really be known and therefore be taught unless placed

under the light of revelation of God” (Van Til, 1990a, p. 4).

He explained further what he meant by this startling and dramatic statement that

not a single fact can really be known. There are, explained Van Til, some apparent

similarities between the perception of the believer and unbeliever. For example, for both

“two times two equals four,” is a true statement. Both come to the same answer.

However, if you go deeper there are differences in how this fact is understood. He

explained that for the theist the fact “two times two equals four” is an expression of the

will and nature of God. In other words, the thing that makes this simple fact true is the

creative Word of God. For the unbeliever “two times two equals four” is a “brute” fact,

which the unbeliever regards as being neutral and independent from any concept of God.

This, claimed Van Til, is an ultimate difference. “In one sense, we could… say that all

men have the facts, since all live in God’s created order and all move in the general

revelation of God” (Van Til, 1990a, p. 16). But Van Til made the bold statement that “no

‘fact’ is seen as it really is unless it is seen in its correct relationship to God” (Van Til,

1990a, p.16).

Presuppositionalism. Van Til’s (n.d.) position was that we must take God as our

starting point. He explained why this approach is essential to his metaphysics and

epistemology:

Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be

unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this that I

propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning

in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken

31


Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in

Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God’s existence, I

hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does

not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use

another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very

guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence. (p. 3)

It is a person’s presuppositions that determine the types of questions one asks and

the types of answers one perceives. Presuppositions determine what a fact means to a

person. Van Til described one’s presuppositions as colored glasses cemented to one’s

eyes (Blake, 1992; Maffett & Dye, 1985; Van Til, 1955a, p. 77) that color everything that

is seen. Elsewhere he wrote, “Looking at the world through the ‘spectacles’ of God’s

Word, we are able to understand the world and our place in it from God’s perspective”

(Van Til, 1979, p. 117). For Van Til, the starting point, in education as in theology, was

always the self-attesting God of scripture (Van Til, 1979).

This presuppositional starting point, Van Til asserted, makes all the difference in

the world. The theistic worldview begins with temporal creation. Van Til (1990b) said,

“Our aim is to show that Christian education is based upon the notion of creation, that

this notion of creation in turn is an inseparable part of the whole theistic philosophy of

life (p. 46). Van Til did not argue for “creationism” as is in vogue among many

evangelicals and others. Rather, he spoke about creation as philosophical starting point.

“Creation,” according to Van Til, “implies that God’s thought alone is original and

absolute, while human thought is derivative and finite” (Van Til, 1990b, p. 47). The

significance of the creation for Van Til is to affirm that God is not part of the creation,

32


but creator of the entire universe and transcendent in being and knowledge (Blake, 1992;

Maffett & Dye, 1985).

Conclusion

A distinctive of private religious schooling is the opportunity to integrate faith and

learning in the school curriculum. The purpose of this study is to explore the

distinctiveness of the Christian School, specifically as expressed in the phrase, “the

integration of faith and learning,” and to discover how experienced teachers understand

the meaning of IFL and how it is practiced in the classroom. Questions about the

meaning and practice of IFL are deeply rooted in the history of faith-based schooling. A

historical review of the relationship between faith and learning beginning in ancient times

(Israel, Babylon and Athens) and moving through the Reformation and into modernity

serves to illustrate its importance. American religious schools often rooted in political

and ecclesiastical movements in Europe serve as examples of the importance and

relevance of this topic today. Six diverse examples of religious school movements in the

United States today further illustrate how schools practice IFL while sometimes

maintaining a fragmented system in which curriculum and pedagogy remain un-impacted

by faith.

This led the author to focus this study using these research questions:

1. What are the distinctive qualities of the Christian School?

2. What does the expression, “the integration of faith and learning” mean to the

Christian school teacher?

3. How does a Christian school teacher integrate faith in the classroom? Or how

does a Christian school teacher practice IFL?

33


Finally, this study has been informed by a particular philosophical/theological

framework, namely one identified as neo-Calvinism or Dutch reformed. A survey of

philosophical and theological constructs that guided this study includes the categories and

concepts of integration, neutrality, dualism, reformed epistemology, presuppositionalism,

and faith and reason.

Chapter One - Introduction - The Meaning and Practice of the Integration of Faith and Learning

Documents

Transcript of Chapter One - Introduction - The Meaning and Practice of the Integration of Faith and Learning