Christian education and theology in the core
The other night my roommates and I had a debate for the umpteenth time about how to make Geneva a better college campus. This specific one focused on teaching Reformed theology as a core class, whether or not it should happen, and if so, at what point during a student’s four years here. Our opinions varied.
My premise was that at some point at Geneva, students should hear the basic tenets of Christian and Reformed theology, things like the inerrancy of Scripture, the order of salvation, TULIP, and the Regulative Principle of worship, not because everyone has to agree with them—I’m not saying that at all—but simply because Geneva believes these things and it’ll make a student’s stay here that much more profitable if they understand why things are done the way they are. (Plus they can never be bad things to think about.)
To Geneva students: Don’t most of you wonder why chapel is the way it is, for example (an example I hesitate to use because chapel is certainly not what Reformed theology is all about)? Wouldn’t you love to hear a good reason for it? Well here ya go.
It’s my impression that students are never given this explanation, or a good overview of what it means to be Reformed. At some point we’re expected to pick it up on our own I guess, which is fine for RPs, PCAs and OPCs, but what about a non-Christian or a new Christian who has never heard this stuff before? When does Geneva lay out the reasons for why they believe what they believe—reasons I find to make sense, but reasons you can’t understand, let alone agree with, if you’ve never heard.
I can’t speak to this real well because I took Bible 151 and 152 over 112 and 113, but I hear you don’t get a lot of that in those survey classes (which I guess is why it’s a survey class), it’s more memorizing kings and one lecture on predestination that makes everybody really mad. Survey is a good place to start, but not enough on its own. Sending your child to Sunday School is great, but eventually they have to hear some sermons.
In fact, thinking back on my seven semesters here thus far, I haven’t really heard a lot of anything about Reformed theology actually in my classes. Things are taught from a Reformed perspective, but how does that make sense if you have no idea what Reformed is? Bible 300 focuses on one part of it, but where’s the broader picture?
My argument for a theology-driven class made total sense to myself and I wondered why there isn’t one. It would seem to benefit everyone involved. But my roommate offered a good piece of insight: Geneva is pretty unique among Christian schools. A student hearing what their college believes is kind of a rare thing, I guess—a fact that boggles my mind. Apparently when people come to even a Christian school, doctrine is the last thing they expect to hear.
Three questions came to my mind at this point. Why is this so? Is this a good thing? And is it bad that Geneva isn’t following the crowd? The last two answers are easy: No and no. Colleges should profess what they believe (if I went to St. Wherever I would expect to hear Catholic theology… I would hope to, etc.) and I am very glad Geneva is breaking the norm on this one. It would take a whole series of articles for me to explain fully why. (Read the Foundational Concepts of Christian Education for starters.)
The other question though, the “why is this so” thing, is a little harder… or maybe it isn’t.
I’ll admit that I’ve known Reformed theology for a while now, at least since 8th grade when I took a Sunday School class on the Westminster Confession. We were new members of a PCA church and I was eating the stuff up. It just made so much sense to me. It’s always made sense to me that a church would teach doctrine.
Likewise, I graduated from Beaver County Christian School after transferring there from North Allegheny High School after my freshman year. I made the conscious decision to switch schools because I recognized that schools, like churches, teach what they believe, and I wanted to learn from a Christian perspective. BCCS pushed me further along my Reformational educational journey.
So why am I in the minority thinking that this whole teaching what you believe thing makes sense? First, because a lot of Christian schools don’t do that, and second, because neither do a lot of churches. If doctrine isn’t being preached so to not offend or divide, this is a bad thing. The Bible is true and Christians must work out what they believe. We must always be prepared to give an answer, and we do this by meditating on the Word both day and night. We should teach it to our children and learn it from our parents. If this isn’t being done than we aren’t following the teachings of Christ. Plain and simple. This should happen from the pulpit as well as in our own reading of Scripture.
However, many churches today preach empty sermons and sing empty songs. They pray empty prayers and produce empty Christians, filled with nothing more than words like “Jesus” and “love,” with nothing more to build a life around. Certainly these ideas are important at first, but the Bible teaches that once we are accustomed to milk we must move on to solid food.
Also, many Christian schools and teachers try to leave out what they believe when they teach. I can see why this might make sense if you’re teaching 3rd graders from a range of denominational backgrounds, but college students ought to be able to hear something and test it against Scripture without getting all riled up.
I have no idea if this is why Geneva doesn’t have a theology class in the core, but it’s certainly why it wouldn’t be well received if there were. I don’t think becoming educated in doctrine is the purpose or end of a Christian, but I do think it is a good thing to become sure of—to know what you believe and why you believe it.
And to fully do this, churches and Christian schools must teach! (If you can’t say what your church believes, than I think you need to find a new church—or pay more attention. Does this apply to your school, too? It does if we live our lives as seven-day-a-week Christians.)
We, as Christians, must be willing to listen and discern what is true and what is not. If students come through Geneva, hear about Reformed theology, understand it, and disagree, then the school has done its job. That’s all it can ask. But if students are not willing to engage the ideas held by this college, than we are holding ourselves back from knowing better what we believe and why we believe it—whether or not we believe Reformed ideas.
I’ll admit I put a lot of faith in Christian education. If it was up to me, government schools would soon be a thing of the past. But it’s not up to me—in America’s public schooling system or here at Geneva. And as much as I like to hope people will read this and agree with me—they won’t. But for any of you who have at least made it this far, my plea is this: always be willing to test what you believe and to test something new or different. Don’t give in to worldly ideas—there is truth out there. And it’s our calling to find it.
Jon Dodd
My premise was that at some point at Geneva, students should hear the basic tenets of Christian and Reformed theology, things like the inerrancy of Scripture, the order of salvation, TULIP, and the Regulative Principle of worship, not because everyone has to agree with them—I’m not saying that at all—but simply because Geneva believes these things and it’ll make a student’s stay here that much more profitable if they understand why things are done the way they are. (Plus they can never be bad things to think about.)
To Geneva students: Don’t most of you wonder why chapel is the way it is, for example (an example I hesitate to use because chapel is certainly not what Reformed theology is all about)? Wouldn’t you love to hear a good reason for it? Well here ya go.
It’s my impression that students are never given this explanation, or a good overview of what it means to be Reformed. At some point we’re expected to pick it up on our own I guess, which is fine for RPs, PCAs and OPCs, but what about a non-Christian or a new Christian who has never heard this stuff before? When does Geneva lay out the reasons for why they believe what they believe—reasons I find to make sense, but reasons you can’t understand, let alone agree with, if you’ve never heard.
I can’t speak to this real well because I took Bible 151 and 152 over 112 and 113, but I hear you don’t get a lot of that in those survey classes (which I guess is why it’s a survey class), it’s more memorizing kings and one lecture on predestination that makes everybody really mad. Survey is a good place to start, but not enough on its own. Sending your child to Sunday School is great, but eventually they have to hear some sermons.
In fact, thinking back on my seven semesters here thus far, I haven’t really heard a lot of anything about Reformed theology actually in my classes. Things are taught from a Reformed perspective, but how does that make sense if you have no idea what Reformed is? Bible 300 focuses on one part of it, but where’s the broader picture?
My argument for a theology-driven class made total sense to myself and I wondered why there isn’t one. It would seem to benefit everyone involved. But my roommate offered a good piece of insight: Geneva is pretty unique among Christian schools. A student hearing what their college believes is kind of a rare thing, I guess—a fact that boggles my mind. Apparently when people come to even a Christian school, doctrine is the last thing they expect to hear.
Three questions came to my mind at this point. Why is this so? Is this a good thing? And is it bad that Geneva isn’t following the crowd? The last two answers are easy: No and no. Colleges should profess what they believe (if I went to St. Wherever I would expect to hear Catholic theology… I would hope to, etc.) and I am very glad Geneva is breaking the norm on this one. It would take a whole series of articles for me to explain fully why. (Read the Foundational Concepts of Christian Education for starters.)
The other question though, the “why is this so” thing, is a little harder… or maybe it isn’t.
I’ll admit that I’ve known Reformed theology for a while now, at least since 8th grade when I took a Sunday School class on the Westminster Confession. We were new members of a PCA church and I was eating the stuff up. It just made so much sense to me. It’s always made sense to me that a church would teach doctrine.
Likewise, I graduated from Beaver County Christian School after transferring there from North Allegheny High School after my freshman year. I made the conscious decision to switch schools because I recognized that schools, like churches, teach what they believe, and I wanted to learn from a Christian perspective. BCCS pushed me further along my Reformational educational journey.
So why am I in the minority thinking that this whole teaching what you believe thing makes sense? First, because a lot of Christian schools don’t do that, and second, because neither do a lot of churches. If doctrine isn’t being preached so to not offend or divide, this is a bad thing. The Bible is true and Christians must work out what they believe. We must always be prepared to give an answer, and we do this by meditating on the Word both day and night. We should teach it to our children and learn it from our parents. If this isn’t being done than we aren’t following the teachings of Christ. Plain and simple. This should happen from the pulpit as well as in our own reading of Scripture.
However, many churches today preach empty sermons and sing empty songs. They pray empty prayers and produce empty Christians, filled with nothing more than words like “Jesus” and “love,” with nothing more to build a life around. Certainly these ideas are important at first, but the Bible teaches that once we are accustomed to milk we must move on to solid food.
Also, many Christian schools and teachers try to leave out what they believe when they teach. I can see why this might make sense if you’re teaching 3rd graders from a range of denominational backgrounds, but college students ought to be able to hear something and test it against Scripture without getting all riled up.
I have no idea if this is why Geneva doesn’t have a theology class in the core, but it’s certainly why it wouldn’t be well received if there were. I don’t think becoming educated in doctrine is the purpose or end of a Christian, but I do think it is a good thing to become sure of—to know what you believe and why you believe it.
And to fully do this, churches and Christian schools must teach! (If you can’t say what your church believes, than I think you need to find a new church—or pay more attention. Does this apply to your school, too? It does if we live our lives as seven-day-a-week Christians.)
We, as Christians, must be willing to listen and discern what is true and what is not. If students come through Geneva, hear about Reformed theology, understand it, and disagree, then the school has done its job. That’s all it can ask. But if students are not willing to engage the ideas held by this college, than we are holding ourselves back from knowing better what we believe and why we believe it—whether or not we believe Reformed ideas.
I’ll admit I put a lot of faith in Christian education. If it was up to me, government schools would soon be a thing of the past. But it’s not up to me—in America’s public schooling system or here at Geneva. And as much as I like to hope people will read this and agree with me—they won’t. But for any of you who have at least made it this far, my plea is this: always be willing to test what you believe and to test something new or different. Don’t give in to worldly ideas—there is truth out there. And it’s our calling to find it.
Jon Dodd
posted by CROATOAN at 2:36 PM
1 Comments:
Hey,
This is Heather Pinkerton, and I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this. (This is John Kerry, and I support this ad... ;) Like you mentioned, I have also talked this idea over with different people (mainly RPs). Most people come to Geneva with no idea what they're getting into (denominationally speaking). They have a better idea when they leave, but it's a poorly-informed idea, usually a mish-mash of ideas, all of which they reject quickly because of the "RP label" on them. I've sort of laughed about having "RP doctrine" be part of orientation week's lectures. Maybe that idea should be taken more seriously... =) Anyway, thanks for expressing what others of us have also been thinking.
Post a Comment
<< Home