A Philosophic Foundation - CIRCLE

APhilosophicFoundation

R E D E M P T I V E

E D U C A T I O N

P A R T I

B Y G E O R G E R . K N I G H T

A P P R O V E D F O R 0 . 5 C O N T I N U I N G E D U C A T I O N U N I T S *

4 The Journal of Adventist Education • October/November 2010 http:// jae.adventist.org

5http:// jae.adventist.org The Journal of Adventist Education • October/November 2010

hy study philosophy of education?After all, time is short, and there areso many practical things to learn.Why waste precious hours on some-thing so esoteric and useless?

Those are good questions that re-mind me of the multitude of laws

that populate our world. The world, as we allknow, is full of laws; not only in the physicalrealm, but also in the social. I have been col-lecting these enlightening laws for some years.

Take SCHMIDT’S LAW, for example: “If youmess with a thing long enough, it will break.”

Or WEILER’S LAW: “Nothing is impossible forthe man who doesn’t have to do it himself.”

And then there is JONES’S LAW: “The per-son who can smile when things go wrong hasthought of someone to blame it on.”

Of course, we wouldn’t want to overlookBOOB’S LAW: “You always find something inthe last place you look for it.”

Having been enlightened by such wisdom, Ieventually decided to try my hand at developingsome cryptic and esoteric sagacity of my own.

The result: KNIGHT’S LAW, with two corol-laries. Put simply, KNIGHT’S LAW reads that“It is impossible to arrive at your destinationunless you know where you are going.” Corol-lary Number 1: “A school that does not comeclose to attaining its goals will eventually loseits support.” Corollary Number 2: “We thinkonly when it hurts.”

Those bits of “wisdom” were created in mydays as a young professor of educational phi-

losophy, when I concluded, as I still believe,that a sound philosophy of education is themost useful and practical item in a teacher’srepertoire. That is true in part because philoso-phy at its best deals with the most basic issuesof life—such as the nature of reality, truth, andvalue. Closely related to philosophy is the con-cept of worldview, which “roughly speaking,. . . refers to a person’s interpretation of realityand a basic view of life.”1

People’s beliefs about the philosophic issuesof reality, truth, and value will determine every-thing they do in both their personal and profes-sional lives. Without a distinctive philosophicposition on those three categories, a person orgroup cannot make decisions, form a curricu-lum, or evaluate institutional or individualprogress. With a consciously chosen philoso-phy, however, a person or group can set goalsto be achieved and select courses of action toreach those goals.

Of course, a human being can choose tomerely wander aimlessly through life and aprofessional teaching career. Or he or she canoperate on the basis of someone else’s decisionmaking. The first of those options, if taken se-riously, suggests a philosophic belief that lifeitself is aimless and without clearly definedpurposes, while the second may cause a personto act on a well-thought-out philosophy of ed-ucation but one that has the disconcerting re-sult of leading in the wrong direction.

I would like to suggest that a consciouslythought-out philosophy of education is not only

W

H O W I T W O R K S :

After you have studied the content presented here, send for the test, using the form on page 60. Upon successful completionof the test, you will receive a report on the Continuing Education Units you’ve earned, and the certification registrar of yourunion conference office of education will be notified (North American Division only).

*Approved by the North American Division Office of Education. The tests for Parts I, II, and III must be successfully completed tomeet alternative teaching certification requirements as outlined in Section 5.1 of the K-12 Educators Certification Manual.

This article is the first of three on the philosophy of Seventh-day Adventist education.Part I examines the importance of the topic, describes the basic shape of philosophy, ex-amines the foundational philosophic categories from a biblical perspective, and indi-cates the importance of the biblical worldview in shaping an Adventist approach to edu-cation. Parts II and III will develop the implications of a biblical philosophic perspectivefor educational practice. Many of the topics covered in the first article are treated ingreater depth in the author’s Philosophy and Education: An Introduction in ChristianPerspective, 4th ed. (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2006).

I N T R O D U C T I O N


an educator’s most practical acquisition, but alsohis or her most important one. Ellen White(1827-1915), Seventh-day Adventism’s proph eticthought leader, held the same viewpoint. “By amisconception of the true nature and object ofeducation,” she wrote, “many have been led intoserious and even fatal errors [eternally fatal inthe overall context of her writings]. Such a mis-take is made when the regulation of the heart orthe establishment of principles is neglected inthe effort to secure intellectual culture, or wheneternal interests are overlooked in the eager de-sire for temporal advantage.”2

Again, she wrote, “the necessity of establish-ing Christian schools is urged upon me verystrongly. In the schools of today many things aretaught that are a hindrance rather than a bless-ing. Schools are needed where the word of Godis made the basis of education. Satan is the greatenemy of God, and it is his constant aim to leadsouls away from their allegiance to the King ofheaven. He would have minds so trained thatmen and women will exert their influence on theside of error and moral corruption, instead ofusing their talents in the service of God. His ob-ject is effectually gained, when by pervertingtheir ideas of education, he succeeds in enlistingparents and teachers on his side; for a wrong ed-ucation often starts the mind on the road to infi-delity.”3

It is such thoughts that have led variousChristian denominations, including Seventh-dayAdventists, down through history to go to greatexpense and effort to establish their ownschools. Providing greater urgency has been Ad-ventists’ conviction that each of the church’schildren (as well as the church itself) is caughtin the midst of a great struggle between good andevil. Therefore, the church moved proactively toestablish an educational system based on notonly a general Christian understanding of reality,truth, and value, but one that also reflects dis-tinctively Adventist understandings.

Coming to grips with the undergirding ideasthat have led to the establishment and operationof Seventh-day Adventist schools is the realm ofan Adventist philosophy of education. Of course,grappling with basic ideas is only part of the task.Other aspects include developing practices in har-mony with those foundational understandingsand implementing them in the life of the school.The first two of those goals fit under the rubricof educational philosophy. The practical aspect isthe educator’s responsibility to implement afterconsciously thinking through not only his or herbasic beliefs, but also how those beliefs can andshould impact daily life and professional practice.

Before moving to a discussion of the basic is-

sues of philosophy, it is important to point outthat a philosophy of education is much broaderthan a philosophy of schooling. Schools are onlyone aspect of any social group’s educational sys-tem. The family, media, peer group, and churchalso share the responsibility for educating thenext generation, with the family holding thedominant role. That fact must be recognizedeven though these study materials will use cate-gories that are most often linked with schooling.But the insights being shared are just as impor-tant to educators in the church and family asthey are to teachers in the school. The best over-all educational experience, of course, takes placewhen parents, teachers, and church leaders allshare the same concerns and provide a learningenvironment in which each student experiencesa unified education rather than a schizophrenicone in which the significant educators all es-pouse different views. With that in mind, it is noaccident that Seventh-day Adventists have goneto the effort and expense of establishing a systemthat currently has almost 8,000 schools.

Different systems of education have varyinggoals, and those goals are based on differingphilosophies of education. With that thought inmind, we now turn to an examination of the is-sues basic to philosophy, followed by a look atthe Christian/Adventist understanding of thoseissues. Lastly, we will examine the educationalpractices that flow out of those understandings.

Philosophic Issues and Their Relevancefor Education

Philosophy deals with the most basic issuesfaced by human beings. The content of philos-ophy is better seen as asking questions ratherthan providing answers. It can even be said thatphilosophy is the study of questions. Van CleveMorris has noted that the crux of the matter isasking the “right” questions. By “right” hemeant questions that are meaningful and rele-vant—the kind of questions people really wantanswered and that will make a difference inhow they live and work.4

Philosophical content has been organizedaround three fundamental categories:

1. Metaphysics—the study of questions con-cerning the nature of reality;

2. Epistemology—the study of the nature oftruth and knowledge and how these are at-tained and evaluated; and

3. Axiology—the study of the question ofvalue.

Without a distinctive philosophy of reality,truth, and value, a person or group cannot makeintelligent decisions either for their individuallives or for developing an educational system.

Philosophy

deals with the most

basic issues

faced by human

beings.

The content of

philosophy is

better seen as

asking questions

rather than

providing answers.

C O N T I N U I N G E D U C A T I O N — P A R T I


The questions addressed by philosophy are sobasic that there is no escaping them. As a result,all of us, whether we consciously understand ourphilosophic positions or not, conduct our per-sonal lives and our corporate existence on thebasis of “answers” to the basic questions of life.There is no decision making that is unrelated tothe issues of reality, truth, and value. To put itsuccinctly: Philosophy drives decision making.For that reason alone, the study of the founda-tional questions of philosophy is important. Afterall, it is better to function with understandingthan to wander through life in ignorance of thefactors that shape our choices.

With the importance of understanding thebasic issues in mind, in the next few pages wewill briefly describe the three main philosophiccategories and then move on to an Adventistperspective on each of them.

METAPHYSICS

One of the two most basic philosophic cate-gories is metaphysics. That rather threatening-sounding word actually comes from two Greekwords meaning “beyond physics.” As such,metaphysics is the branch of philosophy thatdeals with the nature of reality. “What is ulti-mately real?” is the basic question asked in thestudy of metaphysics.

At first glance, the answer to that queryseems rather obvious. After all, most peopleseem to be quite certain about the “reality” oftheir world. If you ask them, they will probablytell you to open your eyes and look at the clockon the wall, to listen to the sound of a passingtrain, or to bend down to touch the floor be-neath your feet. These things are, they claim,what is ultimately real.

But are they? Their answers are located on theplane of physics rather than metaphysics. Thereare surely more foundational questions. For ex-ample, where did the material for floors, thepower that runs trains, and the regularity of timeultimately originate? It makes no difference ifyour answer is related to design, accident, ormystery, because once you have begun to dealwith the deeper questions, you have moved be-yond physics to the realm of metaphysics.

We can gain a glimpse into the realm of meta-physics by examining a list of major questionsconcerning the nature of reality. The queries ofthe metaphysician are amongst the most generalquestions that can be asked. It is important to re-alize, however, that people need the answers tothese questions before they can find satisfactoryanswers to their more specific questions. Yetcomplete verification of any particular answer to

these questions is beyond the realm of humandemonstration or proof. But that does not makethe discussion of these issues irrelevant or a mereexercise in mental gymnastics since people,whether they consciously understand it or not,base their daily activities and long-range goalsupon a set of metaphysical beliefs. Even peopleseeking answers to more specific questions—physicists or biologists or historians, for exam-ple—cannot ignore meta phys i cal questions.Thus, undergirding science is the philosophy ofscience, and foundational to historical under-standing is the philosophy of history. It is the phi-losophy of science and history that provides thetheoretical framework for understanding and in-terpreting the meaning of the facts in each field.

Metaphysical questions may be divided intofour subsets. First, the cosmological aspect. Cos-mology consists in the study of theories aboutthe origin, nature, and development of the uni-verse as an orderly system. Questions such asthese populate the realm of cosmology: “Howdid the universe originate and develop? Did itcome about by accident or design? Does its ex-istence have any purpose?”

A second metaphysical aspect is the theologi-cal. Theology is that part of religious theory thatdeals with conceptions of and about God. “Isthere a God? If so, is there one or more than one?What are the attributes of God? If God is both allgood and all powerful, why does evil exist? IfGod exists, what is His relationship to human be-ings and the ‘real’ world of everyday life?”

People answer such questions in a variety ofways. Atheists claim that there is no God, whilepantheists posit that God and the universe areidentical—all is God and God is all. Deists viewGod as the maker of nature and moral laws, butassert that He exists apart from, and is not par-ticularly interested in, the daily events of humanlives or the physical universe. On the other hand,theists believe in a personal Creator God who hasa deep and ongoing interest in His creation. Poly-theism disagrees with mono theism in regard tothe number of gods, with poly theists holdingthat deity should be thought of as plural andmonotheists insisting that there is one God.5

A third subset of metaphysics is the anthro-pological. Anthropology deals with the study ofhuman beings and asks questions like the follow-ing: “What is the relation between mind andbody? Is mind more fundamental than body,with body depending on mind, or vice versa?”“What is humanity’s moral status? Are peopleborn good, evil, or morally neutral?” “To whatextent are individuals free? Do they have freewill, or are their thoughts and actions deter-mined by their environment, inheritance, or a di-



vine Being?” “Does each person have a soul? Ifso, what is it?” People have obviously adopteddifferent positions on these questions, and thosepositions influence their political, social, reli-gious, and educational ideals and practices.

The fourth aspect of metaphysics is the onto-logical. Ontology is the study of the nature of ex-istence, or what it means for anything to exist.Several questions are central to ontology: “Isbasic reality found in matter or physical energy(the world we can sense), or is it found in spiritor spiritual energy? Is it composed of one ele-ment (e.g., matter or spirit), or two (e.g., matterand spirit), or many?” “Is reality orderly and law-ful in itself, or is it merely orderable by thehuman mind? Is it fixed and stable, or is changeits central feature? Is this reality friendly, un-friendly, or neutral toward humanity?”

Metaphysics and EducationEven a cursory study of either historical or

contemporary societies will reveal the impact ofthe cosmological, theological, anthropological,and ontological aspects of metaphysics upontheir social, political, economic, and scientificbe liefs and practices. People everywhere em-brace answers to these questions and then livetheir daily lives in keeping with those assump-tions. There is no escape from metaphysical deci -sions—unless one chooses to vegetate—and eventhat choice would be a metaphysical deci sionabout the nature and function of humanity.

Education, like other human activities, cannotoperate outside the realm of metaphysics. Meta-physics, or the issue of ultimate reality, is centralto any concept of education, because it is impor-tant for the educational program of the school(or family or church) to be based upon fact andreality rather than fancy, illusion, error, or imag-ination. Varying metaphysical beliefs lead to dif-fering educational approaches and even separatesystems of education.

Why do Adventists and other Christiansspend millions of dollars each year on privatesystems of education when free public systemsare widely available? Because of their meta-physical beliefs regarding the nature of ultimatereality, the existence of God, the role of God inhuman affairs, and the nature and role ofhuman beings as God’s children. At their deep-est levels, men and women are motivated bymetaphysical beliefs. History demonstrates thatpeople are willing to die for those convictions,and that they desire to create educational envi-ronments in which their most basic beliefs willbe taught to their children.

The anthropological aspect of metaphysicsis especially important for educators of all per-

suasions. After all, they are dealing with mal-leable human beings at one of the most impres-sionable stages of their lives. Views about thenature and potential of students form the foun-dation of every educational process. The verypurpose of education in all philosophies isclosely tied to these views. Thus, anthropolog-ical considerations lie extremely close to theaims of education. Philosopher D. Elton True-blood put it nicely when he asserted that “untilwe are clear on what man is, we shall not beclear about much else.”6

It makes a great deal of difference whethera student is viewed as Desmond Morris’s“naked ape”7 or as a child of God. Likewise, itis important to know whether children are in-nately evil or essentially good, or good but rad-ically twisted by the effects of sin. Variations inanthropological positions will produce signifi-cantly different approaches to the educationalprocess. Other examples of the impact of meta-physics upon education will become evidentfurther on in our study.

EPISTEMOLOGY

Closely related to metaphysics is the issue ofepistemology. Epistemology seeks to answersuch basic questions as “What is true?” and“How do we know?” The study of epistemologydeals with issues related to the dependability ofknowledge and the validity of the sourcesthrough which we gain information. Accordingly,epistemology stands—with metaphysics—at thevery center of the educative process. Becauseboth educational systems as a whole and teach-ers in those systems deal in knowledge, they areengaged in an epistemological undertaking.

Epistemology seeks answers to a number offundamental issues. One is whether reality caneven be known. Skepticism in its narrow sense isthe position claiming that people cannot acquirereliable knowledge and that any search for truthis in vain. That thought was well expressed byGorgias (c. 483-376 B.C.), the Greek Sophist whoasserted that nothing exists, and that if it did, wecould not know it. A full-blown skepticism wouldmake intelligent action impossible. A term closelyrelated to skepticism is agnosticism. Agnosticismis a profession of ignorance in reference to the ex-istence or nonexistence of God.

Most people claim that reality can be known.However, once they have taken that position,they must decide through what sources realitymay be known, and must have some concept ofhow to judge the validity of their knowledge.

A second issue foundational to epistemologyis whether all truth is relative, or whether some



truths are absolute. Is all truth subject tochange? Is it possible that what is true todaymay be false tomorrow? If the answer is “Yes”to the previous questions, such truths are rela-tive. If, however, there is Absolute Truth, suchTruth is eternally and universally true irrespec-tive of time or place. If Absolute Truth exists inthe universe, then educators would certainlywant to discover it and make it the core of theschool curriculum. Closely related to the issueof the relativity and absoluteness of truth arethe questions of whether knowledge is subjec-tive or objective, and whether there is truth thatis independent of human experience.

A major aspect of epistemology relates to thesources of human knowledge. If one accepts thefact that there is truth and even Truth in the uni-verse, how can human beings comprehend suchtruths? How do they become human knowledge?

Central to most people’s answer to thatquestion is empiricism (knowledge obtainedthrough the senses). Empirical knowledge ap-pears to be built into the very nature of humanexperience. Thus, when individuals walk out ofdoors on a spring day and see the beauty of thelandscape, hear the song of a bird, feel thewarm rays of the sun, and smell the fragranceof the blossoms, they “know” that it is spring.Sensory knowing for humans is immediate anduniversal, and in many ways forms the basis ofmuch of human knowledge.

The existence of sensory data cannot be de-nied. Most people accept it uncritically as repre-senting “reality.” The danger of naively embrac-ing this approach is that data obtained from thehuman senses have been demonstrated to beboth incomplete and undependable. (For exam-ple, most people have been confronted with thecontradiction of seeing a stick that looks bentwhen partially submerged in water but appearsto be straight when examined in the air.) Fatigue,frustration, and illness also distort and limit sen-sory perception. In addition, there are sound andlight waves that are inaudible and invisible tounaided human perception.

Humans have invented scientific instrumentsto extend the range of their senses, but it is im-possible to ascertain the exact dependability ofthese instruments since no one knows the totaleffect of the human mind in recording, interpret-ing, and distorting sensual perception. Confi-dence in these instruments is built upon specu-lative metaphysical theories whose validity hasbeen reinforced by experimentation in whichpredictions have been verified through the useof a theoretical construct or hypothesis.

In summary, sensory knowledge is builtupon assumptions that must be accepted by

faith in the dependability of human sensorymechanisms. The advantage of empiricalknow ledge is that many sensory experiencesand experiments are open to both replicationand public examination.

A second influential source of knowledgethroughout the span of human history has beenrevelation. Revealed knowledge has been ofprime importance in the field of religion. It dif-fers from all other sources of knowledge be-cause it presupposes a transcendent supernat-ural reality that breaks into the natural order.Christians believe that such revelation is God’scommunication concerning the divine will.

Believers in supernatural revelation holdthat this form of knowledge has the distinctadvantage of being an omniscient source of in-formation that is not available through otherepistemological methods. The truth revealedthrough this source is believed by Christians tobe absolute and uncontaminated. On the otherhand, it is generally realized that distortion ofrevealed truth can occur in the process ofhuman interpretation. Some people assert thata major disadvantage of revealed knowledge isthat it must be accepted by faith and cannot beproved or disproved empirically.

A third source of human knowledge is au-thority. Authoritative knowledge is accepted astrue because it comes from experts or has beensanctified over time as tradition. In the class-room, the most common source of informationis some authority, such as a textbook, teacher,or reference work.

Accepting authority as a source of knowl-edge has its advantages as well as its dangers.Civilization would certainly stagnate if peoplerefused to accept any statement unless theypersonally verified it through direct, firsthandexperience. On the other hand, if authoritativeknowledge is built upon a foundation of incor-rect assumptions, then such knowledge willsurely be distorted.

A fourth source of human knowledge is rea-son. The view that reasoning, thought, or logicis the central factor in knowledge is known asrationalism. The rationalist, in emphasizing hu-manity’s power of thought and the mind’s con-tributions to knowledge, is likely to claim thatthe senses alone cannot provide universal, validjudgments that are consistent with one another.From this perspective, the sensations and expe-riences humans obtain through their senses arethe raw material of knowledge. These sensationsmust be organized by the mind into a meaning-ful system before they become knowledge.

Rationalism in a less extreme form claimsthat people have the power to know with cer-


The study of

epistemology

deals with

issues related

to the

dependability of

knowledge

and the

validity of the

sources

through which

we gain

information.

tainty various truths about the universe that thesenses alone cannot give. In its more extremeform, rationalism claims that humans are capa-ble of arriving at irrefutable knowledge inde-pendently of sensory experience.

Formal logic is a tool used by rationalists.Systems of logic have the advantage of possess-ing internal consistency, but they risk being dis-connected from the external world. Systems ofthought based upon logic are only as valid asthe premises upon which they are built.

A fifth source of knowledge is intuition—thedirect apprehension of knowledge that is not de-rived from conscious reasoning or immediatesense perception. In the literature dealing withintuition, one often finds such expressions as“immediate feeling of certainty.” Intuition occursbe neath the threshold of consciousness and isoften experienced as a sudden flash of insight.In tuition has been claimed under varying circum -stances as a source of both religious and secularknowledge. Certainly many scientific break-throughs have been initiated by intuitive hunchesthat were confirmed by experimentation.

The weakness or danger of intuition is thatit does not appear to be a safe method of ob-taining knowledge when used alone. It goesastray very easily and may lead to absurdclaims unless it is controlled by or checkedagainst other methods of knowing. Intuitiveknowledge, however, has the distinct advantageof being able to bypass the limitations ofhuman experience.

At this juncture, it should be noted that noone source of information is capable of supplyingpeople with all knowledge. The various sourcesshould be seen as complementary rather thanantagonistic. It is true, however, that most peoplechoose one source as being more basic than, orpreferable to, the others. That most basic sourceis then used as a benchmark for testing othersources of knowledge. For example, in the con-temporary world, knowledge obtained empiri-cally is generally seen as the most basic and re-liable type. Most people denigrate any purportedknowledge that does not agree with scientifictheory. By way of contrast, biblical Christianitysees revelation as providing the basic frameworkagainst which other sources of knowledge mustbe tested.

Epistemology and EducationEpistemology has a direct impact upon edu-

cation on a moment-by-moment basis. For exam-ple, assumptions about the importance of vari-ous sources of knowledge will certainly bereflected in curricular emphases and teachingmethodologies. Because Christian teachers be-

lieve in revelation as a source of valid knowl-edge, they will undoubtedly choose a curriculumand a role for the Bible in that curriculum thatdiffers substantially from the curricular choicesof nonbelievers. In fact, the philosophic world-view of their faith will shape the presentation ofevery topic they teach. That, of course, is true forteachers from every philosophic persuasion andthus constitutes an important argument for edu-cating Adventist youth in Adventist schools.

The Metaphysical-Epistemological DilemmaThe careful reader has probably realized by

now that humanity, so to speak, is suspendedin midair both metaphysically and epistemolog-ically. Our problem: It is impossible to makestatements about reality without first adoptinga theory for arriving at truth. On the otherhand, a theory of truth cannot be developedwithout first having a concept of reality. We arecaught in a web of circularity.

Through the study of basic questions peopleare forced to recognize their smallness and help-lessness in the universe. They realize that noth-ing can be known for certain in the sense of finaland ultimate proof that is open and acceptableto all people, not even in the natural sciences.Trueblood affirmed that point when he wrotethat “it is now widely recognized that absoluteproof is something which the human being doesnot and cannot have. This follows necessarilyfrom the twin fact that deductive reasoning can-not have certainty about its premises and that in-ductive reasoning cannot have certainty about itsconclusions. The notion that, in natural science,we have both certainty and absolute proof is sim-ply one of the superstitions of our age.”8 Everyperson—the skeptic and the agnostic, the scien-tist and the businessperson, the Hindu and theChristian—lives by a faith. The acceptance of aparticular metaphysical and epistemological po-sition is a “faith-choice” made by each person,and entails a commitment to a way of life.

The circular nature of the reality-truthdilemma is certainly a distressing aspect ofphilosophical thought; but since it exists,human beings are obligated to make them-selves aware of its implications. Of course, thisdilemma comes as no surprise to mature scien-tists who have come to grips with the limita-tions of their discipline and the philosophyupon which it is built. Neither does it pose athreat to believers in certain religious persua-sions who have traditionally viewed their basicbeliefs in terms of personal choice, faith, andcommitment. The whole problem, however,does come as a source of shock and distress tothe average secular individual.


In a

Christian

epistemology,

the findings of

reason must

always be checked

against the

truth of

Scripture.


The result of the metaphysical-epistemologi-cal dilemma is that all persons live by faith in thebasic beliefs they have chosen. The challenge isnot having to make a choice, but making themost adequate choice that takes into considera-tion the full range of realities and knowledgeshuman beings possess. Later in this article, wewill begin to explore a Christian/Adventist ap-proach to the major philosophic issues. But wefirst need to explore the third great philosophicissue—axiology or the question of values.

AXIOLOGY

Axiology is the branch of philosophy thatseeks to answer the question, “What is ofvalue?” All rational individual and social life isbased upon a system of values. Value systemsare not universally agreed upon, and differentpositions on the questions of metaphysics andepistemology produce different value systemsbecause axiological systems are built upon con-ceptions of reality and truth.

The question of values deals with notions ofwhat a person or a society regards as good orpreferable. Axiology, like metaphysics and epis-temology, stands at the very foundation of theeducational process. A major aspect of educationis the development of values. And in that con-text, the classroom is an axiological theater inwhich teachers cannot hide their moral selves.By their actions, teachers constantly instructgroups of highly impressionable young peoplewho assimilate and imitate their teachers’ valuestructures to a significant extent.

Axiology has two main branches—ethicsand aesthetics. Ethics is the study of moral val-ues and conduct. “How should I behave?” is anethical question. Ethical theory seeks to provideright values as the foundation for right actions.In many ways, ethics is the crucial issue of ourtimes. World societies have made unprece-dented technological advances, but have notadvanced significantly, if at all, in their ethicaland moral conceptions.

Both as individuals and within societies,human beings exist in a world in which theycannot avoid meaningful ethical decisions.Thus, schools must teach ethical concepts totheir students. The problem is that people em-brace different ethical bases and feel quite neg-atively about having their children “indoctri-nated” in a moral view that is alien to theirfundamental beliefs. That fact has put schoolsat the center of the various “culture wars” thathave rocked society at large.9 It has also led Ad-ventists and other Christians to establish theirown schools. The desire to pass on to their chil-

dren a specific system of moral values is a pow-erful motivator for most parents.

At the heart of ethical discussions are suchquestions as, “Are ethical standards and moralvalues absolute or relative?” “Do universalmoral values exist?” “Can morality be sepa-rated from religion?” and “Who or what formsthe basis of ethical authority?”

The second major branch of axiology is aes-thetics. Aesthetics asks such questions as “Whatis beautiful?” and “What should I like?” Aesthet-ics is the realm of value that searches for theprinciples governing the creation and apprecia-tion of beauty and art in both “the higher arts”and the things of daily life, such as school archi-tecture, television programs, and billboards.Evaluations of beauty and ugliness fall into theaesthetic realm. Thus aesthetic valuation is apart of daily life and cannot be avoided.

The aesthetic experience is tied to the cog-nitive world of intellectual understanding, butalso soars beyond the cognitive into the affec-tive realm because of its focus on feeling andemotion. Aesthetic experiences enable peopleto move beyond the limits imposed by purelyrational thought and the inadequacies ofhuman language. A picture, song, or story maycreate an impression in a person that couldnever be conveyed through logical argument.

Human beings are aesthetic beings; thus, itis equally impossible to avoid teaching aesthet-ics in the school, home, media, or church as itis to avoid inculcating ethical values. However,the realm of aesthetics does not exist in a vac-uum. To the contrary, aesthetic belief is directlyrelated to other aspects of people’s philosophy.For example, if subjectivity and randomness areembraced in epistemology and metaphysics,they will be reflected in both aesthetics andethics. People’s aesthetic values reflect theirtotal philosophy.

Philosophic Issues and EducationalGoals and Practices

Figure 110 (page 12) illustrates the relationshipbetween philosophical beliefs and practice. It in-dicates that a distinct metaphysical and episte-mological viewpoint will lead the educator to avalue orientation. That orientation, with its cor-responding view of reality and truth, will deter-mine what educational goals are deliberatelychosen by teachers as they seek to implementtheir philosophical beliefs in the classroom.

As a consequence, educators’ goals suggestappropriate decisions about a variety of areas:students’ needs, the teacher’s role in the class-room, the most important things to emphasizein the curriculum, the teaching methodologies



that will best communicate the curriculum, andthe social function of the school. Only when aneducator has taken a position on such matterscan appropriate policies be implemented.

As Figure 1 indicates, philosophy is not thesole determinant of specific educational practices.Elements in the everyday world (such as politicalfactors, economic conditions, social forces, andexpectations of the students’ families or commu-nity) also play a significant role in shaping andmodifying educational practices. However, it isimportant to realize that philosophy still providesthe basic boundaries for educational practice forany given teacher in a specific setting.

Only when teachers clearly understand theirphilosophy and examine and evaluate its impli-cations for daily activity in an Adventist settingcan they expect to be effective in reaching theirpersonal goals and those of the schools forwhich they teach. That is so because, asKNIGHT’S LAW declares: “It is impossible toarrive at your destination unless you knowwhere you are going.”

Corollary Number 1 is also important forevery teacher and school: “A school [orteacher] that does not come close to attainingits goals will eventually lose its support.”

Dissatisfaction occurs when Adventistschools lose their distinctiveness and Adventistteachers fail to understand why their institu-tions must be unique. Such teachers andschools should lose their support, since Ad -ventist education without a clearly understoodand implemented Adventist philosophy is animpossible contradiction and a waste of money.

Corollary Number 2 is therefore crucial tothe health and even the survival of Adventistschools—and the educators in those schools.

“We think only when it hurts.” In too manyplaces, Advent ist education is already hurting.The greatest gifts we as educators can give to theAd ventist educational system and to society are(1) to consciously examine our educational phi-losophy from the perspective of biblical Christi-anity, (2) to carefully consider the implicationsof that philosophy for daily classroom activity,and then (3) to implement that philosophy con-sistently and effectively.

AN ADVENTIST APPROACH TO PHILOSOPHY

Toward a Christian MetaphysicsThe most fundamental and inescapable

observation facing every human being is the re-ality and mystery of personal existence in acomplex environment. Atheistic philosopherJean-Paul Sartre raised that issue when henoted that the basic philosophic problem is thatsomething is there, rather than that nothing isthere. Francis Schaeffer, reflecting upon that in-sight, wrote that “nothing that is worth callinga philosophy can sidestep the question of thefact that things do exist and that they exist intheir present form and complexity.”11

Complexity is a key word in that sentence.Yet despite the complexity of existence, it doesseem to be intelligible. Humans do not live ina universe “gone mad” or one behaving errati-cally. To the contrary, the world around us andthe universe at large apparently operate accord-ing to consistent laws that can be discovered,communicated, and used in making trustwor-thy predictions. Modern science is predicatedupon that predictability.

Another thing about our universe is that it isbasically friendly to humans and other forms of


Figure 1. The Relationship of Philosophy to Educational Practice

EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE

Philosophic Determinants Educational IssuesContextual Modifying Factors

Social Function of Educational Institutions

TeachingMethodologies

Curricular Emphasis

Role of the Teacher

Nature of the Student

Goals

Epistemological Beliefs

Axiological Beliefs

Metaphysical Beliefs PoliticalDynamics

SocialForces

EconomicConditions

Expectationsof ImmediateFamily or Community


life. If it were intrinsically hostile, life wouldmost certainly be extinguished by the ceaselessassault of an unfriendly environment upon rela-tively feeble organisms. The natural world ap-pears to be made-to-order to provide food, water,temperature, light, and a host of other necessitiesthat are essential to the continuation of life. Theparameters of the conditions necessary for themaintenance of life are quite narrow, and evensmall changes in the availability of life’s essen-tials would threaten the existence of life as weknow it. Thus the continuing existence of lifepoints to a basically friendly universe.

But is it really friendly? Clearly, one doesn’thave to be especially brilliant to realize thatmany things are wrong with our world. Wedaily observe a beautiful world seemingly madefor life and happiness, but filled with animosity,deterioration, and death. We are faced with theseemingly intractable problem of pain anddeath existing in the midst of orderliness andlife. There appears to be a great controversy be-tween the forces of good and the forces of evilthat manifests itself in every aspect of life. Theuniverse may be friendly toward life, but thereis no denying that it is often antagonistic topeace, orderliness, and even life itself. Human-ity’s habitat is not a place of neutrality. Rather,it is often an arena of active conflict.

The problem we face is making sense of thecomplex world in which we live. The almostuniversal longing of human beings to makesense of their world has led them to ask thosequestions that form the heart of philosophy.

Some people believe that there is no ultimatemeaning to existence. But others find it less thansatisfactory to suggest that intelligence flows outof ignorance, order out of chaos, personality outof impersonality, and something out of nothing.It seems more likely that an infinite universe pos-tulates an infinite Creator, an intelligent and or-derly universe points to an ultimate Intelligence,a basically friendly universe points to a benevo-lent Being, and the human personality reflects aPersonality upon which individual personalitiesare modeled. People refer to this infinite Creator,ultimate Intelligence, benevolent Being, and orig-inal Personality as “god,” while at the same timerealizing that this word is meaningless until it isdefined.

But how to define god becomes a very realproblem, especially when we acknowledge themental limitations of the human race. Not onlyare we faced with our serious ignorance of thecomplexities of our immediate environment,but also with our inability even to begin to copewith the apparent infinity of time, space, andcomplexity in the universe at large. And obvi-

ously, if we have difficulty grasping the com-plexity of the creation, we have an even greaterchallenge in understanding the Creator, since amaker must be more complex and greater thanthat which is made.

And that reality brings us to the jagged fron-tier between metaphysics and epistemology.Because of our innate human inability to un-derstand the complex reality of the world inwhich we live, the Creator-God has seen fit toprovide a revelation of Himself, His world, andthe human predicament in the Bible.

“In the beginning God” (Genesis 1:1)12 are thevery first words of the Bible. With those words,we find the ultimate foundation of an Adventistapproach to metaphysics. Everything else is sec-ondary to God’s existence. God is the reason foreverything else. And if God is central to the Bibleand reality itself, He must also be at the centerof education. An education that leaves God outof its program is of necessity inadequate. Howcould it be adequate if it leaves out of its ap-proach to learning this most important fact?

But God not only exists, He also acts. Thusthe Bible’s first verse continues with thesewords: “. . . God created the heavens and theearth.” The material world as we know it didnot come about by accident. Rather, its intrica-cies reflect both design and a Designer. Genesistells us that God did not create a flawed world,but one that He could call “very good” near theend of creation week (Genesis 1:31).

Two things are noteworthy about that “verygood” statement. The first is that God createda perfect world. The second is that the materialworld is inherently good and valuable and not,as regarded by some forms of Greek philoso-phy, an evil aspect of reality. According to thebiblical view, the physical environment we in-habit should be respected and cared for be-cause it is God’s good creation.

The final act in creation week was the estab-lishment of a memorial that would remind hu-mans of who God is and what He has done.“Thus,” we read, “the heavens and the earthwere finished, and all the host of them. And onthe seventh day God finished his work which hehad done, and he rested on the seventh day fromall his work which he had done. So God blessedthe seventh day and hallowed it, because on itGod rested from all his work which he had donein creation” (Genesis 2:1-3).

The Sabbath is one of the first educationalfeatures in Genesis. A weekly object lesson, itsobservance by humans was enshrined in theFourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) and isrelevant throughout human history. One of thefinal messages to be given to earth’s inhabi-


The most

fundamental and

inescapable

observation facing

every human

being is the reality

and mystery of

personal existence

in a complex

environment.


The almost

universal longing of

human beings to

make sense of their

world has led

them to ask those

questions that form

the heart of

philosophy.

tants before the second coming of Jesus is to“‘worship him who made heaven and earth,the sea and the fountains of water’” (Revelation14:7), an obvious reference back to the TenCommandments and through them to the me-morial of Creation in Genesis 2.

Central to Christian metaphysics are thefacts that God exists and that He acted in cre-ation. But He not only created birds and trees,He also created human beings in His ownimage (Genesis 1:26, 27). Of all God’s crea-tures, human beings are the only ones made tobe like God. Thus in its original state, humanitywas sinless and pure. Beyond that, humanswere created in a responsible relationship totheir Maker. God gave them “dominion” overevery living creature and “all the earth” (vs.26). Human beings were created to be God’sstewards, His vice-regents on earth.

A fourth important element in a Christianunderstanding of reality is the “invention” ofsin by Lucifer, who forgot his own creatureli-ness and sought to put himself in the place ofGod (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:14-17). Withthe entrance of sin, we find the genesis of thecontroversy between good and evil that we ex-perience in the world around us.

Sin is bad enough in the abstract. But, theBible tells us, it didn’t just remain “out there”in the universe. Rather, Lucifer spread it toearth. How sin entered planet Earth and thehuman race is set forth in Genesis 3, which de-scribes the corruption of humanity as a resultof what theologians call “the Fall.”

The effects of sin have been devastating to thehuman race. Not only did sin cause estrange-ment between God and humans (Genesis 3:8-11),humans and their fellow beings (vs. 12), humanswith their own selves (vs. 13), and humans withGod’s created world (vss. 17, 18), but it also ledto death (vs. 19) and a partial loss of the imageof God (Genesis 9:6; 5:3; James 3:9).

Accompanying the invention of sin by Luciferand its spread to humanity at the Fall is the real-ity of the ongoing conflict between Christ andSatan (often referred to as the “Great Contro-versy”) that began before the creation of thisearth and will not be terminated until the finaldestruction of the devil and his works at the endof the millennium (Revelation 20:11-15). Thatcontroversy dominates the pages of the Biblefrom Genesis 3 through Revelation 20. The focalpoint of this warfare is Satan’s attempt to dis-credit God’s character and to pervert human per-ceptions of His law of love (Matthew 22:36-40;Romans 13:8-10). God’s foremost exhibition ofHis love was not only sending Jesus to rescue afallen race but more particularly Christ’s death

on the cross. The Book of Revelation indicatesthat God’s law of love will be an issue in the con-troversy between the forces of good and evil untilthe end of earthly history (12:17; 14:12).

The Fall of Genesis 3 is a central tenet of thebiblical worldview. Without the Fall, the rest ofthe Bible makes no sense. Starting with Genesis3, the Bible features both the results of humantransgression and God’s plan and efforts fordealing with the sin problem. As we will seewhen we discuss the needs of students, the Falland its results are foundational issues in Chris-tian education. They are, in fact, issues thatmake Christian education unique among his-tory’s educational philosophies.

Another aspect of a Christian metaphysic isthe inability of human beings, without divineaid, to change their own nature, overcome theirinherent sinfulness, or restore the lost image ofGod. Lost is the word the Bible uses to describethe human condition. The daily news reflectsthe results of that lostness in its continuous re-porting of greed, perversion, and violence. Andif the news were not enough, popular entertain-ment focuses on illicit sex and violence. TheBible describes the same problems as occurringeven among God’s heroes.

Of course, ever since the Fall, there have beenpeople who have wanted nothing to do with Godand His principles. But many humans havewanted to be good. Among them are those whomake long lists of resolutions and attempt to liveflawless lives, but to no avail. They repeatedlyexperience failure as their passions, appetites,greed, and natural inclination toward selfishnessovercome their best intentions; and they repeatthe dynamics of the Fall in a personal fall intosinful ways. Another group have achieved a fairamount of goodness or respectability throughself-control and law keeping, but have ended upbeing proud of their righteousness. Included inthis group are the Pharisees throughout the ageswho smugly declare that they are better thanother people, not recognizing their own blind-ness to their real condition (Luke 18:9-14). Nomatter how hard human beings try to be right-eous, they still remain lost and confused.

As a result of universal human lostness in itsseveral variations, the Bible pictures God takingthe initiative for humanity’s salvation andrestoration through the incarnation, life, death,resurrection, and heavenly ministry of JesusChrist. Evidence of God’s initiative in the rescueplan of salvation appears throughout the Bible.We first find that initiative in Genesis 3:9, but itruns throughout the Old Testament and into theNew, where we are told that “God so loved theworld that He gave his only Son, that whoever



believes in him should not perish but have eter-nal life” (John 3:16). Jesus put it somewhat dif-ferently when He claimed that His mission was“‘to seek and to save the lost’” (Luke 19:10).

An important aspect of Christ’s incarnationis that it reveals God’s character. “In many andvarious ways,” we read in the opening wordsof the Book of Hebrews, “God spoke of old toour fathers by the prophets; but in these lastdays he has spoken to us by a Son, whom heappointed the heir of all things, through whomalso he created the world. He reflects the gloryof God and bears the very stamp of his nature”(1:1-3). Jesus is the fullest revelation of God’scharacter. The Bible declares that “God is love”(1 John 4:8), but reading those parts of it thatmake Him appear to be less than loving makesus wonder about His real nature. The earthlylife of Jesus, however, illustrates God’s love andepitomizes the other attributes of His character.As a result, Jesus’ character and life provide anethical ideal for His followers.

Because of human lostness, God sent theHoly Spirit to implement His plan for restoringHis image in fallen humanity. That work in-cludes the calling out of a community of believ-ers. The Bible pictures the rescue of the lost asa divine act in which individuals are born ofthe Spirit (John 3:3-6), transformed in theirminds and hearts (Romans 12:2), and resur-rected to a new way of life in which they modelChrist’s character (Romans 6:1-14). Each ofthose acts results from the work of the HolySpirit, the third Person of the Godhead.

Those who respond positively to the Spirit’swork become a part of the community of saintswhich the Bible calls the Church or the body ofChrist (Ephesians 1:22, 23). But we must notconfuse the Church and the church. The visiblechurch on Earth is made up of members whomay or may not be under the guidance of theSpirit. But the Church of God includes onlythose believers who have truly surrenderedtheir hearts to God and have been born of theSpirit, who is central to God’s great plan of res-cuing the lost and restoring the divine ideals.

Some of those ideals relate to social action.God commands His people to feed the hungry,care for the sick, and seek in all ways not onlyto preserve the Earth but also to make it a betterplace. But in the end, He knows that even thebest human efforts at reform will fall short ofwhat needs to be done to clean up the mess cre-ated by sin. Thus, social action is an importantfunction of God’s people, but an inadequate onein the sense of eradicating the problem.

As a result, Christ has promised to return atthe end of earthly history to put an end to sin

and its results. At that time, He will not onlyfeed the hungry but also abolish hunger, notonly comfort the grieving but also eradicatedeath. The Bible pictures the Second Advent asthe hope of the ages (Titus 2:13; Revelation21:1-4). It describes the final act in the dramaof salvation as the restoration of Planet Earthand its inhabitants to their Edenic condition (2Peter 3:10-13). The Bible closes with a pictureof the restored Earth and an invitation for peo-ple to join God and Christ in their great plan ofredemption and restoration (Revelation 21, 22).

Summary of the Biblical Frameworkof Reality

• The existence of the living God, the Creator.• The creation by God of a perfect world and

uni verse.• Humanity’s creation in the image of God

as His responsible agents on earth.• The “invention” of sin by Lucifer, who for-

got his own creatureliness and sought to puthimself in the place of God.

• The spread of sin to the earth by Lucifer,resulting in the Fall of humanity and the partialloss of God’s image.

• The conflict or Great Controversy betweenChrist and Satan over the character of God andHis law of love, which runs throughout earthlyhistory.

• The inability of human beings, without di-vine aid, to change their own nature, overcometheir inherent sinfulness, or restore the lostimage of God within themselves.

• The initiative of God for humanity’s salva-tion and its restoration to its original statethrough the incarnation, life, death, resurrec-tion, and heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ.

• The revelation of God’s character in the lifeand teachings of Christ, which provides thefoundation for Christian ethics.

• The activity of the Holy Spirit in the planfor restoring God’s image in fallen humanityand His work in the calling out of the commu-nity of believers, the Church.

• The command of Christ for the Church tobe socially active in the interim between Hisfirst and second advents.

• The return of Christ at the end of earthly his-tory to put an end to sin and solve the problemsthat human social action could not eradicate.

• The eventual restoration of the earth andits faithful inhabitants to the Edenic condition.

Metaphysics and Adventist EducationThe above discussion presents the basic out-

line of a Christian view of reality. Because Chris -tianity is a supernatural religion, it is thoroughly



antithetical to all forms of naturalism, to thosetheistic schemes that do not place God at thecenter of the human educational experience, andto humanism, which purports that humanity cansave itself through its own wisdom and good-ness. Adventist education, to be Christian in ac-tuality and not so in name only, must con-sciously be built upon a biblical metaphysicalposition.

A Christian view of metaphysics provides thefoundation for Adventist education. Christian ed-ucational systems have been established becauseGod exists and because His existence sheds lighton the meaning of every aspect of life. Other ed-ucational systems have alternative foundationsand cannot be substituted for Christian educa-tion. Belief in the Christian view of reality moti-vates people to sacrifice both their time and theirmeans for the establishment of Christian schools.The same is true for Adventist education, whichnot only sets forth those teachings that it shareswith other Christians, but also those biblical be-liefs that make the Seventh-day Adventist Churcha distinct Christian movement with an end-timemessage to share with the world. Adventistschools that teach only those beliefs that the de-nomination shares with other Christians have noreason for existing.

A biblical metaphysic determines what shallbe studied in the school, and the contextualframework in which every subject is presented.As such, the biblical view of reality supplies thecriteria for curricular selection and emphasis.The biblically based curriculum has a uniqueemphasis because of Christianity’s unique meta-physical viewpoint. Adventist education musttreat all subject matter from the perspective ofthe biblical worldview. Every course must be for-mulated in terms of its relationship to the exis-tence and purpose of the Creator God.

Thus, every aspect of Adventist education is de -termined by the biblical view of reality. Biblicalmetaphysical presuppositions not only justifyand determine the existence of, curriculum usedin, and social role of Adventist education; theyalso explicate the nature, needs, and potential ofthe learner, suggest the most beneficial types ofre lationships between teachers and their students,and provide criteria for the selection of teachingmethodologies. Those topics will be further de-veloped in the second and third installments ofthese continuing-education study materials.

A Christian Epistemological PerspectiveEpistemology, as we noted above, deals with

how a person knows. As such, it has to do withone of the most basic problems of human exis-tence. If our epistemology is incorrect, then it

follows that everything else in our philosophicunderstanding will be wrong or, at the veryleast, distorted. We earlier saw that every philo-sophic system develops a hierarchy of episte-mological sources that becomes foundational.

For Christians, God’s revelation in the Bible isthe foremost source of knowledge and the mostessential epistemological authority. All othersources of knowledge must be tested and verifiedin the light of Scripture. Underlying the authori-tative role of the Bible are several assumptions:

• Humans exist in a supernatural universein which the infinite Creator God has revealedHimself to finite minds on a level they can com-prehend in at least a limited fashion.

• Human beings were created in the imageof God, and even though fallen, are capable ofrational thought.

• Communication with other intelligent be-ings (people and God) is possible in spite of hu-manity’s inherent limitations and the inadequa-cies of human language.

• The God who cared enough to reveal Him-self to people also cared enough to protect theessence of that revelation as it was transmittedthrough succeeding generations.

• Human beings are able to make suffi-ciently correct interpretations of the Biblethrough the guidance of the Holy Spirit to ar-rive at valid truth.

The Bible is an authoritative source of Truthsthat are beyond the possibility of attainment ex-cept through revelation. This source of knowl-edge deals with the big questions, such as themeaning of life and death, where the world camefrom and what its future will be, how the prob-lem of sin arose and how it is being dealt with,and the like. The purpose of Scripture is to “in-struct” people “for salvation through faith inChrist.” Beyond that, it is “profitable for teach-ing, for reproof, for correction, and for trainingin righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:15, 16). It shouldbe apparent, then, that the Bible is not an ex-haustive source of knowledge and never was in-tended to be a “divine encyclopedia.” It leavesmany questions unanswered. On the other hand,because it answers the most basic questions offinite humanity, it provides a perspective and ametaphysical framework in which to exploreunanswered questions and to arrive at coherent,unified answers.

The Bible does not try to justify its claims,and thus must be accepted by faith based uponboth external and internal evidences, such asthe discoveries of archaeology, the witness offulfilled prophecy, and the satisfaction its wayof life brings to the human heart. Reinforcingthis idea, we read in Steps to Christ that “God



never asks us to believe, without giving suffi-cient evidence upon which to base our faith.His existence, His character, the truthfulness ofHis word, are all established by testimony thatappeals to our reason; and this testimony isabundant. Yet God has never removed the pos-sibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evi-dence, not demonstration. Those who wish todoubt will have opportunity; while those whoreally desire to know the truth will find plentyof evidence on which to rest their faith.”13

Seventh-day Adventists believe that theBible teaches that the prophetic gift will be inthe church until the Second Advent (Ephesians4:8, 11-13) and that Christians are not to rejectthe claims of those who believe they have theprophetic gift, but to test their teachings by thetestimony of the Bible (see 1 Thessalonians5:19-21; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1, 2).

Having done that testing, the Seventh-day Ad-ventist Church early concluded that Ellen G.White had a valid gift of revelatory proph ecy forthe Adventist community that would help it tobe faithful to biblical principles during the periodbefore the Second Advent. That gift was notgiven to take the place of the Bible or to providenew doctrines, but to help God’s people under-stand and apply God’s Word as revealed in theBible. “The written testimonies,” Ellen Whitepenned, “are not to give new light, but to im-press vividly upon the heart the truths of inspi-ration already revealed. Man’s duty to God andto his fellow man has been distinctly specified inGod’s word, yet but few of you are obedient tothe light given. Additional truth is not broughtout; but God has through the Testimonies simpli-fied the great truths already given and in Hisown chosen way brought them before the peopleto awaken and impress the mind with them.”14

It is important to note that Ellen White hada great deal to say about education in the con-text of the biblical worldview. As a result, wewill quote her insights where they contributeto rounding out an Adventist philosophy of ed-ucation.

The source of knowledge next in importancefor the Christian is that of nature as people en-counter it in daily life and through scientificstudy. The world around us is a revelation of theCreator God (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20). The-ologians have given the term “special revelation”to the Scriptures, while they have viewed thenatural world as a “general revelation.”

Regarding the relationship between specialand general revelation, Ellen White writes:“Since the book of nature and the book of rev-elation bear the impress of the same mastermind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By

different methods, and in different languages,they witness to the same great truths. Scienceis ever discovering new wonders; but shebrings from her research nothing that, rightlyunderstood, conflicts with divine revelation.The book of nature and the written word shedlight upon each other. They make us ac-quainted with God by teaching us something ofthe laws through which He works.”15

Yet even the casual observer soon discoversproblems in interpreting the book of nature. Heor she sees not only love and life, but also hateand death. The natural world, as observed byfallible humanity, gives a garbled and seem-ingly contradictory message concerning ulti-mate reality. The apostle Paul noted that thewhole of creation has been affected by the Fall(Romans 8:22). The effects of the controversybetween good and evil have made general rev-elation by itself an insufficient source of knowl-edge about God and ultimate reality. The find-ings of science and the daily experiences of lifemust be interpreted in the light of scripturalrevelation, which supplies the framework forepistemological interpretation.16

The study of nature does enrich humanity’sunderstanding of its environment. It also pro-vides answers for some of the many questionsnot dealt with in the Bible. However, the inves-tigative value of human science must not beoverestimated. As Frank Gaebelein points out,scientific people have not produced the truth ofscience. They have merely uncovered or foundwhat is already there. The “hunches” gainedthrough patient scientific research that lead toa further grasp of truth are not mere luck. Theyare a part of God’s disclosure of truth to hu-manity through the natural world.17

A third epistemological source for the Chris-tian is rationality. Humans, having been createdin the image of God, possess a rational nature.They can think abstractly, be reflective, andreason from cause to effect. As a result of theFall, human reasoning powers have been less-ened but not destroyed. God’s plea to sinful in-dividuals is that they might “reason together”with Him concerning the human predicamentand its solution (Isaiah 1:18).

The role of rationalism in Christian epistemol-ogy must be clearly defined. The Christian faithis not a rationalistic production. People do notar rive at Christian truth through developing bythemselves a system of thought that leads to acorrect view of God, humanity, and the nature ofsin and salvation. Rather, Christianity is a re-vealed religion. Unaided human reason can bede ceitful and lead away from truth. Christians,therefore, while not rationalistic in the fullest


If our

epistemology is

incorrect, then it

follows that every-

thing else in our

philosophic

understanding will

be wrong or, at

the very least,

distorted.



The Bible

provides a per-

spective and a

metaphysical

framework in which

to explore

unanswered ques-

tions and to arrive

at coherent,

unified answers.

sense of the word, are rational. Bernard Rammhas correctly remarked that reason is not asource of religious authority, but rather a mode ofapprehending truth. As such, “it is the truth ap -prehended which is authoritative, not reason.”18

The rational aspect of epistemology is an es-sential part in, but not the sole element of, know-ing. It helps us understand truth obtainedthrough special and general revelation, and en-ables us to extend that knowledge into the un-known. In a Christian epistemology, the findingsof reason must always be checked against thetruth of Scripture. The same principle must beapplied to knowledge gained through intuitionand from the study of authorities. The all-encom-passing epistemological test is to compare allpurported truth to the scriptural framework.

In closing, we need to make several otherobservations about a Christian approach toepistemology:

• From the biblical perspective, all truth isGod’s truth, since truth finds its source in Godas the Creator and Originator.19

• There is a Great Controversy underway in thearea of epistemology, just as there is a similar ten-sion in nature. The forces of evil are continuallyseeking to undermine the Bible, distort humanreasoning, and convince people to rely on theirown inadequate fallen selves in their search fortruth. The epistemological conflict is of crucial im-portance because misdirection in this area willshift every other human endeavor off-center.

• There are absolute Truths in the universe,but fallen humans can gain only a relative orimperfect grasp of those absolutes.

• The Bible is not concerned with abstracttruth. It pictures truth as related to life. Know-ing, in the fullest biblical sense, means apply-ing perceived knowledge to one’s daily life.

• The various sources of knowledge avail-able to the Christian are complementary. Thus,while all sources can and should be used by theChristian, each one should be evaluated in thelight of the biblical pattern.

• The acceptance of a Christian epistemol-ogy cannot be separated from the acceptanceof a Christian metaphysics, and vice versa.

Epistemology and Adventist EducationThe Christian view of truth, along with

Christian metaphysics, lies at the foundation ofthe very existence of Adventist education. Theacceptance of revelation as the basic source ofauthority places the Bible at the heart of Chris-tian education and provides the knowledgeframework within which all subject matters areto be evaluated. That insight particularly im-pacts upon the curriculum. We will see in our

later discussion of curriculum that the biblicalrevelation provides both the foundation and thecontext for all subjects taught in Christianschools. Christian epistemology, since it dealswith the way people come to know anything,also influences the selection and application ofteaching methodologies.

Aspects of Christian AxiologyChristian values build directly upon a bibli-

cal perspective of metaphysics and epistemol-ogy. Both a Christian ethic and a Christian aes-thetic are grounded in the biblical doctrine ofcreation. Ethical and aesthetic values exist be-cause the Creator deliberately created a worldwith these dimensions. Thus, the principles ofChristian axiology are derived from the Bible,which in its ultimate sense is a revelation of thecharacter and values of God.

A crucial consideration in a Christian axiol-ogy is that Christian metaphysics sets forth aposition of radical discontinuity from otherworldviews, in terms of the normality of thepresent world order. While most non-Christiansbelieve that the present condition of humanityand earthly affairs is the normal state of things,the Bible teaches that human beings have fallenfrom their normal relationship to God, otherpeople, their own selves, and the world aroundthem. From the biblical perspective, sin and itsresults have altered people’s nature and af-fected their ideals and valuing processes. As aresult of the present world’s abnormality, peo-ple often value the wrong things. Beyond that,they are liable to call evil “good” and good“evil” because of their faulty frame of reference.

Christ Himself was an axiological radical. Hisradicalism stemmed in part from the fact that Hebelieved humanity’s true home is heaven andnot earth. But He did not teach that the presentlife is not of value. Rather, He claimed that thereare things of more value, and that they shouldbe the foundation for human activity. When oneapplies Christ’s teaching, his or her life will bebased upon a different set of values from thelives of persons who feel at home in the abnor-mal world of sin. To be normal in terms of em-bracing God’s ideals will therefore make a Chris-tian appear abnormal by the standards of thepresent social order.

Christian values must be built upon Christianprinciples. Thus, they are not merely an exten-sion of non-Christian values, even though thereare certainly areas of overlap. As noted earlier,the two major subsets of axiology are ethics (therealm of the good) and aesthetics (the realm ofthe beautiful). The absolute basis of Christianethics is God. There is no standard or law be-



yond God. Law, as it is revealed in Scripture, isbased upon God’s character, which centers onlove and justice (Exodus 34:6, 7; 1 John 4:8; Rev-elation 16:7; 19:2). Biblical history provides ex-amples of divine love and justice in action.

The concept of love is a meaningless ideauntil it is defined. The Christian looks to theBible for a definition because it is there that theGod who is love has revealed Himself in a con-crete way that is understandable to humanminds. The Bible’s fullest elucidations of themeaning of love appear in the actions and atti-tudes expressed by Jesus, the exposition of lovein 1 Corinthians 13, and in the underlyingmeaning of the Ten Commandments. Even abrief study reveals a distinct qualitative differ-ence between what “normal” humans refer toas love and the biblical concept of divine love.John Powell captured the essence of divine lovewhen he pointed out that love focuses on giv-ing rather than receiving.20 It works for the verybest good of others, even those thought of asenemies. In that same vein, Carl Henry hasaptly written that “Christian ethics is an ethicsof service.”21 Thus, it is that Christian ethicsand Christian love stand in radical discontinu-ity from what is generally thought of as love byhuman beings.

That concept leads us to the ethical expres-sion of God through His revealed law. All toomany Christians believe that God’s basic law isthe Ten Commandments. That is not the positionJesus took. When asked about the greatest law,He replied that “‘You shall love the Lord yourGod with all your heart, and with all your soul,and with all your mind. This is the great and firstcommandment. And a second is like it, You shalllove your neighbor as yourself. On these twocommandments depend all the law and theprophets’” (Matthew 22:37-40). The Ten Com-mandments thus are an extension and concreteillustration of the Law of Love. The first fourcommandments explain a person’s duties in re-gard to love to God, while the last six explainvarious aspects of a person’s love for otherhuman beings (see Romans 13:8-10). In onesense, the Ten Commandments may be seen asa negative version of the Law of Love, explainedin a way that gives people some definite guide-lines that they can apply to daily life.

One of the difficulties with a negative ethicalbase is that people are always seeking to knowwhen they can stop loving their neighbor, whenthe limit has been reached. Peter’s question inregard to the limits of forgiveness is a case inpoint. Like all “normal” individuals, Peter wasmore interested in when he could stop loving hisneighbors than in how he could continue to love

them. Christ’s 70 times 7 answer indicates thatthere are no limits to love (Matthew 18:21-35).There is never a time when we can stop lovingand cut loose and be our “real selves.” That is themessage of Christ’s two great commandments.

Thus, the Christian ethical perspective is pri-marily positive rather than negative. That is,Christian ethics focuses primarily on a life ofloving action and only secondarily on what weshould avoid. Christian growth does not comefrom what we don’t do, but is rather a productof what we actively do in our daily lives. Andthat positive ethic is based upon the new birthexperience (John 3:3-6). Christians have notonly died to the old way of life; they have alsobeen resurrected to a new way of life as theywalk with Christ (Romans 6:1-11).

Before concluding our discussion of Chris-tian ethics, there are several more points tomake. One is that a biblical ethic is internalrather than external. Jesus, for example, re-marked that harboring thoughts of hate or adul-tery is just as immoral as the acts themselves(Matthew 5:21-28). He also taught that all ex-ternal actions flow out of the heart and mind(Matthew 15:18, 19).

Second, the Christian ethic is based upon apersonal relationship with both God and otherpeople. It involves actually loving both God andpeople and cannot be satisfied with a mere legaland/or mechanical relationship. Of course, ourrelationships with others should be legal, but be-yond that, they must also be personal.

Third, the biblical ethic is based upon thefact that every individual is created in theimage of God and can reason from cause to ef-fect and make moral decisions. They canchoose to do good or evil. Thus, the Christianethic is a moral enterprise. Unthinking moralityis a contradiction in terms.

Fourth, Christian morality is not merely con-cerned with people’s basic needs. It wants thevery best for them.

Fifth, a Christian ethic, contrary to manypeople’s perspective, is not something that in-terferes with the good life. “In reality, moralrules are directions for running the human ma-chine. Every moral rule is there to prevent abreakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the run-ning of that machine.”22

Sixth, the function of the Christian ethic is re-demptive and restorative. Because of the Fall,human beings became alienated from God, otherpeople, their own selves, and their physical en-vironment. The role of ethics is to enable peopleto live in a way that helps to restore those rela-tionships and to bring people into the position ofwholeness for which they were created.



Christian

growth does not

come from what

we don’t do,

but is rather a

product of what we

actively do in

our daily lives.


AestheticsThe second major branch of axiology is aes-

thetics. It is an important function of all educa-tional systems to develop in students a healthysense of what is beautiful and ugly.

What is a Christian aesthetic? To arrive at adefinition, several points need to be made. Thefirst is that humans are, by their very nature,aesthetic beings. They not only appreciatebeauty, but also seem to be compulsive creatorsof it. That is one result of their being created inthe image of God. God not only created func-tional things—He also created things of beauty.He could have created the world destitute ofpleasing colors, without the sweet scents offlowers, or the amazing array of birds and ani-mals. The existence of beauty in nature sayssomething about the Creator. Of course, onedifference between the creatorship of peopleand that of God is that He created out of noth-ing (Hebrews 11:3), while humans in theirfiniteness must fashion and mold that which al-ready exists.

A second point to note is that while creativ-ity is good, not everything that humans createis good, beautiful, or edifying. That is true be-cause even though human beings were createdin the image of God, they have fallen and nowhave a distorted view of reality, truth, andvalue. Art forms, therefore, not only revealtruth, beauty, and goodness, but also illustratethe unnatural, erroneous, and perverted. Be-cause the galactic controversy between goodand evil has invaded every aspect of humanlife, it also affects the aesthetic realm and is es-pecially powerful in the arts due to their emo-tional impact and their profound involvementin the intricacies of human existence.

A leading question in the area of Christianaesthetics is whether the subject matter of artis-tic forms should deal only with the good andbeautiful, or whether it should also include theugly and the grotesque. Using the Bible as amodel, we perceive that it does not deal onlywith the good and the beautiful. But neitherdoes it glorify the ugly and evil. Rather, sin,evil, and ugliness are put in perspective andused to point out humanity’s desperate need ofa Savior and a better way. In summary, the re-lationship of the good and ugly in the Bible istreated realistically so that the Christian, withthe eyes of faith, learns to hate the ugly be-cause of his or her relationship with the Godwho is beauty, truth, and goodness.

Dealing with the relationship between thebeautiful and the ugly in art forms is vital toChristian aesthetics because of Paul’s warningthat by beholding we become changed (2

Corinthians 3:18). Aesthetics has a bearing onethics. What we read, see, hear, and touch hasan effect on our daily lives. Aesthetics, therefore,lies at the very center of the Christian life and areligious system of education. As a result, aChristian producer of art (which in one sense isall of us) ideally is a responsible servant of Godwho, out of a heart filled with Christian love,functions “to make life better, more worthwhile,to create the sound, the shape, the tale, the dec-oration, the environment that is meaningful andlovely and a joy to mankind.”23

Perhaps that which is most beautiful from aChris tian perspective is whatever contributes to-ward restoring individuals to a right relationshipto their Maker, other people, their own selves, andthe environment in which they live. Whatever ob-structs the restorative process is, by def ini tion,evil and ugly. The ultimate goal of Chris tian aes-thetics is the creation of a beautiful character.

Axiology and Adventist Education“Education,” Arthur Holmes writes, “has to do

with the transmission of values.”24 It is that tru -ism that places axiology alongside of metaphy sicsand epistemology as a foundational reason whySeventh-day Adventists have chosen to establishand maintain a separate system of schools.

A Christian perspective on such axiological is-sues as ethics and aesthetics is an essential con-tribution of Adventist education in a world thathas lost a balanced and healthy biblical orienta-tion. The cultural tension in differing value sys-tems is central to what David Naugle labels“worldview warfare.”25 James D. Hunter andJonathan Zimmerman explore the explosive im-plications of those axiological issues in bookswith such expressive titles as Culture Wars: TheStruggle to Define America and Whose America?Culture Wars in the Public Schools.26

Values education is a central reason for theexistence of Adventist schools. And Adventisteducators need to be both informed and activeas they seek to transmit to their students a bib-lically based approach to values.

Adventist Philosophy and EducationThe existence of Adventist schools is no acci-

dent. To the contrary, the church early in its his-tory realized that because its philosophy differedsignificantly from other segments of society, ithad a responsibility to pass on that philosophyto young people through the development of aneducational system. That was a conscious choicebuilt upon philosophic principle. The result hasbeen the creation of an Adventist system of edu-cation that currently has almost 8,000 schools,colleges, and universities.


That system and the expense undergirdingit can be justified only if the church’s schoolsare faithful to the philosophic foundation uponwhich they were established. The best way, inthe descriptive language of Shane Anderson,“to kill Adventist education” is to neglect thosephilosophic underpinnings.27 For that reasonalone, the study of the philosophy of Adventisteducation is of crucial importance to educators,school board members, pastors, and parents.

Thus far in our presentation we have exam-ined the biblical philosophic position that mustinform Adventist educational practice. In Parts IIand III, we will discuss what that philosophymeans in terms of the needs of the student, therole of the teacher, the formation of the curricu-lum, the selection of teaching strategies, and thesocial function of the Adventist school in thechurch and the larger world. �

POINTS TO PONDER• Why is metaphysics so important to edu-

cation?• What are the implications of epistemology

for the operation of a Christian school?• In what specific ways can (or should) a

Christian ethic shape your daily activities as aneducator?

• Why is it that aesthetics are controversialin a Christian (or even a non-Christian) envi-ronment?

This continuing education article has been peer reviewed.

Dr. George R. Knight hastaught at the elementary,secondary, and universitylevels, and has also servedthe Seventh-day AdventistChurch as a school admin-istrator and pastor. He haswritten widely in the areasof Adventist educational

philosophy as well as Adventist educational andchurch history. Now retired, but still writing andspeaking at conventions and camp meetings, helives in Rogue River, Oregon.

NOTES AND REFERENCES1. David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Con-

cept (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 260.2. Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and

Students (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn.,1943), p. 49.

3. __________, Fundamentals of Christian Education(Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publ. Assn., 1923), p. 541.

4. Van Cleve Morris, Philosophy and the AmericanSchool (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), pp. 19, 20.

5. For a helpful treatment of the various “isms,” seeNorman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart:A Handbook on World Views, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids,Mich.: Baker, 1989); a broader treatment is found inJames W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic WorldviewCatalog, 3d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997).

6. David Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1957), p. xiv.

7. Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape (New York: Dell,1967).

8. David Elton Trueblood, A Place to Stand (New York:Harper and Row, 1969), p. 22. For a fuller discussion onthe limits of proof, see Trueblood’s General Philosophy(New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 92-111.

9. See James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Strug-gle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991);Jonathan Zimmerman, Whose America? Culture Wars inthe Public Schools (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 2002).

10. From George R. Knight, Philosophy and Education:An Introduction in Christian Perspective, 4th ed. (BerrienSprings, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2006), p. 34.Reproduced by permission.

11. Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is NotSilent (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1972), p. 1.

12. Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible texts in this ar-ticle are quoted from the Revised Standard Version. Bibletexts credited to RSV are from the Revised Standard Versionof the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, by the Divisionof Christian Education of the National Council of theChurches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission.

13. Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Mountain View,Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1892, 1893, 1956), p. 105.

14. __________, Testimonies for the Church (MountainView, Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1948), vol. 5, p. 665.

15. __________, Education (Mountain View, Calif.: Pa-cific Press Publ. Assn., 1952), p. 128.

16. See Ibid., p. 134.17. Frank E. Gaebelein, “Toward a Philosophy of

Christian Education,” in An Introduction to EvangelicalChristian Education, J. Edward Hakes, ed. (Chicago:Moody, 1964), p. 44.

18. Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Religious Authority(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 44.

19. See Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth Is God’s Truth(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 8-15.

20. John Powell, The Secret of Staying in Love (Niles,Ill.: Argus Communications, 1974), pp. 44, 48.

21. Carl F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (GrandRapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 1957), p. 219.

22. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmil-lan, 1960), p. 69.

23. H. R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of aCulture, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1973),p. 243.

24. Arthur F. Holmes, Shaping Character: Moral Edu-cation in the Christian College (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd-mans, 1991), p. vii.

25. Naugle, Worldview, op cit., p. xvii.26. Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define Amer-

ica, op cit.; Zimmerman, Whose America? Culture Warsin the Public Schools, op cit.

27. Shane Anderson, How to Kill Adventist Education(and How to Give It a Fighting Chance!) (Hagerstown,Md.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2009).


Documents

A Philosophic Foundation - CIRCLE