Education: Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom

I hate to burst your bubble, but that's not what I said. It was what you said which I failed to put into the quote function. So I disagree with this, and reiterate that what I present is knowledge, wisdom and understanding according to the Biblical model.

This is typical secular pedagogy. It ignores the Biblical fact that every single person is unique and has God-given gifts to develop. It ignores the fact that men and women are different. It ignores the differences in learning patterns between someone raised in a Christian home and someone recently saved.

I don't live and teach by secular principles of pedagogy, but by Biblical principles. So, I reject this thinking, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and any other secular set of principles that contradict the Word of God.

Fleshly thinking.

Teaching them to walk in the Spirit of God.

 

I can see now why you disagree.

I find no specific major or alarming disagreement with (for instance) "Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and any other secular set of principles" that are actually in agreement with the Scriptures.

Sticking with Maslow (since you brought it up) here is a short article relating highlights of his thinking: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

I struggle with finding it opposed to Scriptures.

The basic level of need (food, water, shelter - warmth, rest) was even exampled by the walk of Christ.
The next level (security, safety) is more often the prayer of the persecuted church.
The following level (intimate relationships, friends) is exactly why the Lord compelled the formation of the church.
After that level (prestige and accomplishment) is Biblical as believers are identified as adopted children of God, and "study to show yourself approved..."
The last level (one's full potential) is what Paul would state as "do the work." Perform the task God has gifted you to do...

John, I do not embrace what is not Scriptural.

But it matters not if science is secular or sacred to the world.

All is sacred to the believer. And when I find that which (though formulated by an unbeliever) that helped me discern and apply learning tools, then I did not reject it.

You seem to consider all such sources unworthy.

Years ago, a pastor confronted a teacher for not teaching "Christian phonics."

The teacher responded, "I was unaware that there was a Christian sound for "t" perhaps you can demonstrate."

 

Now these are all very good. Could they not get them without having to pay tuition? :)

I am not mocking your efforts.

You seem to place "fleshly thinking" as a spiritual hindrance (and it is) in which the resolve is to "walk in the Spirit" which conforms to the same thinking as "walk in the spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh."

There really is no disagreement at this point.

However, where you would deal (hopefully) with believers, I dealt with the Godly and the ungodly.

Perhaps, that is why I had to look for and found much agreement between much of the teaching concerning the cognitive development and motivation and the Scriptures.

I am not saying that there is no rot found modern sciences. That is a statement reflecting bias and close mindedness.

What is a Scriptural principle (modeled by Daniel) is that when the Scriptures can be shown in agreement (Daniel's gang dietary needs) with some thinking and then used along with that thinking often to cut through to the basic issues dealing with the ultimate resistance, patterns of a behavior modification resulted in student success (Daniel's gang better then all).

If there were ever a gang in full resistance, it was Daniel's. Yet, they were required to learn what was presented to them, because they were chosen. They either learned or faced sever consequences. However, there was also the resistance Daniel faced from the educators. They had their own need to succeed - their job security was based upon their success rate as teachers.

So, what did Daniel's gang do?

Look back at Maslow's chart, and look for the pattern.

Did not they manipulate and gain success in much the same manner? What of other times when faced with conflict? Ultimately, can one not recognize the Maslow chart in action?

I am not suggesting Maslow follows Scripture. I am suggesting that learning what Maslow held and demonstrating both by comparing and contrasting his thinking with the Scriptures is not presenting a conflict.

Cognitive behavioral methods are often very consistent with Scriptures.

Perhaps you are aware of this program: Homepage - Association of Certified Biblical Counselors

Here is their doctrinal statement: STANDARDS OF DOCTRINE - Association of Certified Biblical Counselors

Just in case anyone asks, I was not, nor am a member. I show the available link(s) for demonstration of how the Scriptures are not alien to cognitive behavior modification understandings and techniques.

 

I don't want to make this thread about Maslow, but I will say just two things. (1) Maslow embraces an unbiblical view of self esteem (see 2 Tim. 3:2), and (2) Maslow completely leaves out the spiritual needs of a person. My sister, who taught for years in a secular college, immediately saw this when I discussed it with her.

I never said you did.

But I don't teach according to science (though I may sometimes use tools developed by science). For example, the world says "Socratic method" to describe a teaching method using questions. Christ used questions also, but it wasn't the Socratic method. I find it far better to imitate Christ's method than that of Socrates.

I never said that.

This illustration is meaningless to me.

 

But you also do not seem to find any consistency in the Scriptures with sciences that may actually assist you in determining the necessary for resolve.

Why not?

Of course the worldly leave out the Spiritual! Would you actually expect more from such?

However, as much as one may gain of the Spiritual, that does not always resolve the physical and much less the psychological issues. Much can certainly be done, but resolve may also need behavior modification techniques that are not necessarily spelled out in the Scriptures.

When you teach one who is borderline autistic (HFA), or manifests evidence of difficulty due to some emotional trauma, this is merely a Spiritual problem that can be resolved totally by spiritual means?

Is that the extent of what you agree?

I just wanted to probe the view you take in this matter.

For example: Addictive behavior patterns may not be Spiritually based. So if they manifest in the classroom, what skill set do you draw from to discern and provide suggested guidance?

Or, is this largely ignored, as it often was in long ago decades past when particularly "fundamental independent Baptist pastors" were taught psychology was an evil science.

I am not condemning, but desire to know to what extent your view is on this matter.

 

They made a decision to obey God and politely asked their authority for the dietary restrictions to be relaxed based on their religious convictions. This hardly qualifies as anything analogous to any secular method of education.

Absolutely not. There was no manipulation and there was no "success" in a secular concept at that point. There was the blessing of God. They approached the secular problems with a mindset of faith.

Again, I don't want to make this into a Maslow thread, but a Christian should base his or her entire life on spiritual principles, which Maslow completely ignores. Even the physical needs which form the base of Maslow's pyramid are subject to the guidance, blessing and provision of God, not based on self effort.

My training (such as it was) was in nouthetic counseling, but my method was based on trichotomy. I don't use "cognitive behavior modification" but faith-based behavior modification. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).

We had a neighbor in Japan for many years, a city planner who was a fine, upstanding Japanese citizen, followed the Buddhist ceremonies, treated their neighbors kindly, and was kind to us. However, they rejected Christ, making their lives of none effect and their destiny Hell.

 

I'm perfectly willing to accept genuinely scientific research (using the scientific method) in psychology. Unfortunately, most of secular pedagogy does not use research based on the scientific method.

And there you have my point: leave out the spiritual and you've left out everything, no matter how well the student learns secular subjects.

I disagree. Are you familiar with Keswick theology? The Christ walk brings the heart in line with the spirit.

I have a young lady in my Greek class who is probably autistic, but I haven't asked and will not ask. She is doing quite well, by the way.

Every student, whatever their brilliance or handicaps, should be treated with love and respect, and with the recognition of the image of God in that person--something all secular pedagogy and psychology rejects.

In our institution, it is not my task as a professor to handle addictive behavior. Our deans do much counseling in this area, and we have a wonderful faith based ministry for addictions in our church.

Believe it or not, I took 9 credits of psychology courses with secular textbooks in a leading fundamentalist college in the 1970's. Then, counseling a schizophrenic in my church in Japan, I delved deeply into both secular and Christian psychology and counseling.

Here is the deep problem with almost all secular theories and methods: they ignore the subjects of sin and the sin nature in humans. (Name me a secular theory which includes the sin nature.) Having done that, their entire theory is skewed badly.

Would you trust a doctor whose theories and methodologies ignored the existence of the human brain? That's how serious the omission of a position on sin and the sin nature is in secular psychology. Scientific research into brain functions, etc., can be useful, but not the theories of secular psychology. Been there, done that.

 

We all need theological education - but I didn't get mine at a Bible college.

Let's try again. Students are not empty vessels to fill with knowledge. They all have different backgrounds, different church affiliations, different basic knowledge & understanding & God-given wisdom before they come to you. Most will be reading, studying Scripture systematically already & will come to build on their faith so they can become teachers & preachers. Some will be listening to TV & radio sermons & Bible courses, & be reading theology on line.

The converted RC will be hearing fresh Christian teaching that will challenge him & he is likely to take a positive attitude to ALL your teaching.

The Christian from a Presbyterian background will come with a range of "alternative" Christian doctrine & he will in an position where his basic understanding will be at variance from yours. He will question your teaching on baptism & eschatology. Presbyterian contacts complain about youngsters being baptised while at university. And you are unlikely to convince an amil that he is wrong.

You may even get middle aged Christians seeking training for Christian service after years of secular employment, who are already well established in the faith, & hold a partial preterist amil position.

Others will be surprised as they read the Scriptures that the Gospels & letters say nothing about a future millennium, nothing about Israel being restored as a nation, & nothing about a separation of Israel & the Church.

Hopefully all will be growing spiritually in their knowledge, understanding & wisdom, & Christian love & service. But true Christians do differ in our understanding, interpretation & doctrine. And some would question specific aspects of your theology, but continue the course.

Would I fail your eschatology exam? Would I be given credit for my understanding & Scriptural reasoning, even though you disagree?

 

Would you limit how a preacher obtains a theological education to Bible college, seminary, etc.?

Reading your story made me wonder whatever happened to Billy Joe?

 

I mean this kindly, but it shows. You are not bad in some areas of theology, but very weak in others.

So far we agree.

Ours is a Baptist college, so Presbyterians don't apply. We have as our primary goal the training of students for the ministry, so we have a rigorous entry process. The prospective student must agree with the doctrinal statement, fill out a detailed application, and go through an interview. We have only one middle aged student, and he made it through the process.

If I taught at a school which allowed amil and postmil positions, I would allow my students to hold such positions. But ours is dispensational and premillennial. If someone objects to those views, they will not pass the interview process, and indeed would not want to be here.

My exams deal with material in the textbooks, not my own positions or preferences. If you knew the textbook well enough, you would pass. The test would have nothing to do with your understanding and Scriptural reasoning, which you would nevertheless be welcome to share in class--subject to correction by the prof. :)

 

Nope, or I would have rejected D. L. Moody and Billy Sunday. But I do think those men should have gone to a Bible institute, at a minimum.

I wish I knew. I hope he's up in the hills of Tennessee preaching somewhere.

 

More often the earlier work was done in a manner that was plowing such new ground that basic concepts were very malformed and subject to the whims of the "authority."

Generally speaking as the 60's and early 70's begin to wind down, the researchers began to take on a more standard and authoritative form, and developed theoretical frameworks that could stand more rigorous academic review.

As technology (ct scans, mri, blood testing...) became more capable, then the field has moderated significantly. No longer is some conditions based upon observation, but can actually be medically diagnosed. (A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia ) Remember, the field is barely over 100 years old (started in Germany in the late 1870's), so it is still finding and discovering as an infant.

What I taught in the early 70's is greatly different then what can be presented almost 60 years latter.

You have a point, but it is narrow. For if the "spiritual" could truly resolve all issues, then all one would need to do (in the simplest of terms) is take a spiritual pill.

But, as you would agree, both the sin, and the effects of sin, even the hold and propensity to sin run much deeper. More often saying such things as "commit your ways to the Lord," or "if you read your Bible and pray in a certain manner" or " the Bible has the answer to all issues" are being found not shallow, but more often in application, untrue.

Practical Bible based helps are not to be ignored because someone may not find it agreeable.

Here I want to tread a very careful line. Because there is some of Keswick thinking that is very good.

I consider some of the weakness are in these areas:
1) The typical presentation is that sin is known, and therefore able to be controlled. This is just not completely sound from the practical Scriptural application. Not all sin is known, and not all sin is overtly manifested. The thoughts and INTENTS of the heart are often fully working yet unknown in that person in which they work.

2) The ability to "control" or having the Holy Spirit "control" is perhaps a false understanding. The Holy Spirit guides and leads and the Holy Spirit places the believer into educational encounters in which they learn and practice SELF control. This is early in the steps mentioned in Peter.

3) There is a certain level of presenting the believer as "not right with God" in the thinking. That God's blessings or affections are mitigated upon the relationship. Again, this may have some traction, but as it is carried by some, it becomes less Scripturally sound.

I could go into more, but it is enough.

That is so good to read. The complexity is not a light that is either or, but a spectrum that may even manifest in a certain area and not in another.

For example: A HFA person may have no problem interacting in a large group setting, but refrain from personal one on one interaction.

There is a movie that I recommend to anyone who wants to see how one can thrive, even in the most sever manifestation. It is NOT a Christian film, but it can be wonderfully used as a conversation starter in the college classroom, and a discussion as to the impact believers could have on the person as well as if that person were to be a believer. Here:Temple Grandin (TV Movie 2010) - IMDb

Oh, that the church would grasp this truth!

I remember the days most vividly were the unusual were deposited as if they had the plague into a mental institution.

This is proper and good.

However, I was not asking to treat, I was asking for recognition and being able to provide immediate guidance until such professionals may be available.

For example: The typical teacher is trained in CPR, and yet, does not recognize the student who may seem distracted or "spaced out" at infrequent times as epileptic. A wise teacher will be self aware enough not to be so consumed in the presentation as to not watch the interactions of the students and use techniques of behavioral modifications when necessary to proactively ferret out troubles before they even occur.

I'm thrilled that you had such an initiative. Much has changed from those early days.

You assume that all sciences should not ignore the subjects of sin and the sin nature. Yet, you would not expect such to be the teaching of astronomy, surgery, archeology.

Certainly, the Scriptures are to be a factor. And in some presentations at the graduate level, there is training and teaching that includes the impact of religious teaching on people. More often it concerns the cult mentality. As mentioned in another thread, sometimes it is evidenced even on the BB were there is nearly a complete resistance to change.

I will respond to this later.

 

I would say there is still a long way to go in this discipline.

Then am I to infer that you have no problem with Maslow leaving out the human spiritual needs? I daresay Maslow would disagree with Blaise Pascal, who is often quoted as saying, "Every person has a God-sized hole in his heart." (This is not the actual quote, but the popular interpretation.)

I don't say these things in counseling. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Lest we make this thread into a Keswick thread, I'll just say that I'm not agreed with your characterizations of the theology. For example, you've left out the vital Keswick view of sanctification. Here we have Keswick teaching modified by revivalist teaching ala John R. Rice and others.

Sorry, we don't do Hollywood movies here.

I don't remember Baptist churches ever supporting mental institutions.

Okay.

Conditions like epilepsy are discerned from the student's application. There is no need to discern any medical condition in the modern college classroom.

It wasn't my own initiative. The courses were required at my college, and the nouthetic counseling training was required by my mission board (though I did a lot of reading beyond that).

Oh, please. Don't put words in my mouth. We were talking about psychological theories. I would not be so ignorant as to demand that other sciences would require a doctrine of sin.

Once again, you mis-characterize my post. Name one single modern psychological theorist who recognizes a sin nature, or even sin itself: Freudian, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I much prefer Christian theorists such as Adams, Minrith and Meier, Mack, even Collins.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think there is any particular benefit to wonder whether "so and so might have been a better preacher if..."

The main reason I asked the question is because some people are obsessed not with theological education per se, but how one obtains their theological education.

As do I. God often has a place to fit someone in who doesn't fit elsewhere.

 

The biographers of both of those men have done so.

Got it.

 

I also disagree with such a concept of thinking that humankind has some void they are attempting to fill with the world and actually desire God. Unless I missed some Scripture section, there just never seemed to be type of thinking found, so support of it wains.

Taking from your initial rejection of Maslow, because the spiritual was left out, I merely showed that in truth (though the man was not attending nor intended to address spiritual side) the work does follow the principles of the Scriptures.

It was an attempt to show that not all psychological work was anti God. As all true science, the findings always agree with statements of Scriptures (as in archeology, astronomy, biology) but the conclusions written by the ungodly will leave out God or appoint to some phenomena to replace God (Darwin would be a good example, I think).

I am not opposed to Keswick teaching in parts. I generally do not holding onto any teaching as complete and without error either in practice or presentation.

Did you not state above, John R. Rice "modified" the teaching to better fit what was consistent in Scriptures.

Keswick is modified, cannot modern psychological tools and thinking also not undergo a similar discernment?

I offered the movie as a resource, nothing more. It would do well to at least read about the lady and what she accomplished. I think her story may be useful in teaching examples.

Here is a link that will give you factual information: Welcome to Temple Grandin's Official Autism Website

Such is a blight on the Baptists.

If there were any group that supposedly implores for support of the needy, Baptists in their programed giving does.

Yet in this, they ignored the sick, the hurting, the poor, the hungry at their own doorstep, and allowed tremendous sorrows to be heaped upon those who were different, and needed the very ones that could have helped them the most.

At least your great uncle developed a wonderful work, and stood to help many. I remember your uncles remarking how they grew up thinking what an adventurous life they lived. Able to camp out all the time. :)

True much cases of epilepsy are discovered in children, however, there are certain diseases that start the process. These more often occur in young adults.

Manifestations such as aura around lighting, unfocused attention, even what some would seem to show as what is initially experienced by those with migraines are indicators that more may be at issue. A student who arrives overly sleepy, when asked how did they sleep and length of time slept, may be passed over as just something that happens, but when it becomes more then an occasional phenomena, need to be guided into medical helps. Perhaps they are siezuring in their sleep and the brain is not cycling properly providing the proper regenerative times necessary. Perhaps there is some other issue that needs attention.

My point being that a good teacher who spends time with the students (more then the typical parent) will continue to build their knowledge base (including in the areas of psychological development) so they may recognize and give aid and direction. They do not diagnose, they do not cure, they are the watchmen on the wall giving out the warning that what is approaching may impact the learning.

Here is a bit of an experiment.
While teaching and encountering that difficult student, give a test printed colored paper to all the students. Pink, yellow, light blue, light green. As the tests change colors, see if the test scores change for that troubled student. There may be an undiagnosed problem and not attitude preventing success. :)

Beside, who wants to grade everything as black and white. :)

Why not apply the same requirement?

Originally, were not all sciences held up to the church for inspection.

Just because history has finally determined that they shouldn't undergo such scrutiny, why is psychology not excused from such a determination, also?

Certainly, it is true, ALL the early considerations were based solely on observations, and experimentation. But that is the same as ALL sciences.

This is the acceptance of current "Christian theorists" yet reject that foundation of those same theorists' own learning?

Basically, did they all not get schooled in Freudian, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, ....?

Do they not draw from their own schooling and from the excess, the failures and the successes of those who went before to formulate their own experienced results and to form their own basis of helps?

Surely one will have to admit from the list of those you would approve that they also learned from the prior experiences and wisdom of those you do not approve.

Would that not make of your rejection of the others weakly supported?

Can you not also learn from them, and use what is beneficial and what is consistent with Scriptures, also?

Throughout this short discussion, the suggestion is that outright rejection of those who are theorists in the field because they don't deal with the sin nature is baseless. One doesn't discard Wesley, Edwards, Luther, ... because they may find disagreement in one area, but take from all that which is truthful and conforms to Scriptures.

 

By done so I assume you mean speculated "Moody and Sunday would have been better preachers if..." We love our speculations.

 

@agedman:

You've wandered far from the OP, what with your talk of Baptists ignoring the poor and needy (not true), your defense of secular psychology (you'll never convince me), your advocacy of a college prof looking for illnesses in the classroom, etc. Can't we get back to the OP? I'm not interested in debating psychology with you.

 

Sure,

Your defense of Baptists as not ignoring the poor and needy is hollow. The best they offered was a Children's home in the Dallas area that has been closed. The typical Baptist church was never involved with missions, but contributed to the programed giving expected others to do the work, and they would just give the money.

Even the typical SBC "revival" has historically been less about saving souls and more about the regularly scheduled annual time commitment.

Independent Baptists have a better track record, and various ones have actually

But, back to the OP.

You cling (adverb stating the degree left out) to the thinking that you teach knowledge, and I was trying to gently persuade you (see how I put in the adverb of degree) to agree that you teach the elements from your knowledge in which the student may acquire (see the definition of knowledge) as they determine is useful and fitting for their own knowledge.

For example:
As a great (large) fishing vessel called "Professor's Knowledge" has arrived at port with the its containers loaded with fish (skills, understandings, rationale...). Unloading the fish (skills, understandings, rationale, ...) into the containers of the processing factory called "Student's Knowledge", does not mean that the ship is dismantled and reassembled in the factory.

Rather what the ship contains, is off loaded, and as the factory determines the quality, the amount necessary, the value... it accepts that which has been off loaded as worthy.

 

Nice try. I gave Scripture which specifically notes humans teaching knowledge to humans. I think I'll stick to Scripture on this.