Introduction

What is education, and what is its end goal? Throughout the centuries, different cultures have given different answers. However, there is one culture that has been the repository of divine revelation. The Hebrew people were chosen by God and given the oracles of God that were meant to be a light to all nations (Gen. 12:1-3; Isa. 49:6). Unfortunately, the light God gave through his Word has not been embraced as God intended – even to this day God’s people struggle to teach their children in a way that results in a life-long commitment to God. The result is that people sit in darkness (Isa. 9:2). For that darkness to be dispelled, people must come to know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Ultimately, the light of God came to full expression in Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ – the promised Messiah. However, early in their history, God revealed how a people (and individuals) come to know him. God gave a command, known as the Shema, that became central to the Hebrew identity. This paper will argue that

the Shema reveals both the methodology and the end goal of education as defined by God. Specifically, God has revealed that parents are the means by which God educates children through a relational model of learning. When followed as God directs, the Shema fulfills the true purpose of education: to know, love, value, and obey God.

The Purpose of Education

However, unlike the Hebrews, in most societies, education focused on teaching children to become responsible citizens who could contribute to civic life. The Greeks, for example, believed that “an educated individual was one who could assume responsible living and hold a contributing role in greater society” (Anthony and Benson, 2011, p. 53). In contemporary America, John Dewey developed what has been called the theory of Progressive Education. His philosophy of education is grounded in pragmatism and encourages an experiential approach that also prepares students to become effective citizens in a democracy (Moghal, n.d.). However, unlike the Greeks (whose educational emphasis revolved around tradition), for Dewey, the purpose of education was to enable students to navigate life through their own experiences (Chambliss, 2003, p. 2). His educational philosophy was based on the idea that truth is defined by the individual, not by the larger community they are part of. Their experience of life, when reconstituted towards the larger good of society, can contribute to society’s progress, but for Dewey, the goal was the individual’s progress. The ancient Hebrews also sought to develop responsible citizens, but with a very different goal than the Greeks or our contemporary society. The goal of education for the Hebrews was to lead citizens to be faithful to God. An individual’s contribution to society was proportional to their faithfulness in walking with and obeying God, and faithfulness to God ensured blessings for the community as a whole (Walter, 1997).

The Goal of Education

In all three societies, the method of education was defined by its goal. For the Greeks, and one can argue our own society, the goal of producing productive citizens that contribute to the polis demands a professional class of educators that delivers specialized knowledge. Greeks focused on the community’s outcome, while Americans focused on the individual’s outcome. For the Hebrews, however, the goal of producing a person of faith who walked with God demanded an entirely different educational process. Hence, the Hebrews believed that education was the responsibility of the family (Guterman & Neuman, 2017). And while the Hebrews also wanted a productive citizen, their definition of a productive citizen varied greatly from that of the Greeks or contemporary America. Where the Greeks wanted citizens who could contribute to and promote the civic life of the community, the Hebrews wanted a citizen who would uphold the cultic life of the community. For the Greeks, the goal was integration into society for the sake of society. For Americans, the goal is integration into society for the individual’s sake. But for the Hebrews, the goal was personal responsibility before God. Any integration into society was proportional to their personal commitment to YHWH. Hence, the Greeks promoted the good of the polis, contemporary America promotes the good of the individual, but the Hebrews promoted the glory of God (cf. Gen. 12:1-2; Hab. 2:14; Mal. 1:11).

The Process of Education

Further, the processes are as varied as are the respective societies’ understanding of metaphysical reality. For the Greeks, life was defined by the gods. Appeasing the gods was necessary, but the gods were not an integral part of personal life (Grant, 1989, p. 73). In other words, people did not interact with the gods on a personal basis. In contemporary America, metaphysics is defined by naturalism (Reinert, 1939). The prevailing ideology posits that life is a product of what can be seen. Hence, there is no personal dimension to metaphysical reality. Like Greek culture, American education seeks what can be known, and the educational process, grounded in pragmatism, reflects that belief. Professionals transmit knowledge that benefits either the community (the Greeks) or the individual (contemporary American culture), but the transmission of knowledge is what matters.

However, for the Hebrews, reality is defined by a personal God that seeks to walk in fellowship with individual people. Therefore, because metaphysical reality is defined by a personal God, the educational process of the Hebrews was defined by personal relationships that reflected what is metaphysically real. Instead of professionals teaching what was useful, the Hebrews used parents to teach what was relational. In other words, to understand the nature of reality, it was necessary that their educational process reflect that reality. According to the Hebrews, reality is defined by a personal God who can be known through love (Anthony and Benson, 2011). While knowledge is important, true knowledge is not obtained until one learns to love God. All knowledge must be filtered through the lens of that relationship. Hence, foundational to the Hebrew mind was learning that knowledge is relational. Therefore, knowledge was transmitted through a love relationship that could approximate the relationship God desired for his people – through the family (Gal 4:6-7). God loves his people as a mother and father love their son or daughter. To experience the knowledge of God, then, the student must first learn what relational knowledge looks like in the context of family. Hence, parents, not professionals, were to teach and reflect the nature of God in their daily interactions (Anthony and Benson, 2011, p. 23).

For the Christian community to effectively teach its children, this distinction must be understood. American culture is ultimately an heir of Greek culture (Pearcey, 2004). But Christian culture (based on biblical revelation) is the heir of Hebrew culture. Unfortunately, the American educational system is taken for granted in Christian circles and even in Christian churches. The impersonal nature of knowledge and its transmission may impart useful, pragmatic knowledge, but it cannot impart relational knowledge that is foundational to understanding both God and his Word. Further, the method utilized to teach communicates something about metaphysical reality. In other words, pedagogy can influence one’s worldview (Lindemann, 2016). If knowledge is grounded in pragmatism and utilitarianism (or even naturalism), then one’s worldview will not rise above the cold, indifferent view that knowledge is defined by what is useful and/or beneficial (Dreher, 2016, p. 149). In this view, knowledge is to be discovered and manipulated to change or enhance one’s environment, according to Dewey. However, if knowledge is grounded in a relational metaphysical reality, then one’s worldview will rise above what is seen and embrace a holistic view of life that understands that knowledge is not about what can be used as a first priority, but about who is there. This is not to suggest that all knowledge is only relational. Indeed, scripture clearly teaches that knowledge is both personal and propositional (Wright, 1996, p. 95). However, as scripture defines it, knowledge begins by seeing the Other(s) before seeing things (Deut. 6:4; John 13:35; 1 Cor. 13:1; Rev. 2:4). The nature of love demands this. In God’s eyes, love comes first. Therefore, relational knowledge precedes propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge is encompassed within relational knowledge and is used to define one’s proper response and way of life before God (see Psalm 119). Therefore, to properly see the Other(s) and walk in faith before God, one best learns about God relationally (Matt. 22:35-40; Romans 13:8-10).

The Educational Imperative

It is for this reason that the greatest commandment given to the Hebrew people, called the Shema, is about learning to love God. It reads,

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deuteronomy 6:4, NKJV).

This text is perhaps the most important text in all of Hebrew scripture (Bromiley, 1988, p. 470). Everything else that was written was in some way related to this command to love God (cf. Matt. 22:36-40).

The ultimate purpose of this command was to teach people how to respond to God. They were to love God expressed through obedience. Elsewhere, the Bible says that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Note the relationship between the knowledge of God, i.e., relational knowledge, and understanding (wisdom), which is the goal of education. In the Shema, the fear of the Lord translates into a life of worship and obedience to God. John Sailhamer (1992) writes, “Ironically, the fear of God which produces obedience is here called ‘love’… It is thus clear that the ‘fear of the Lord’ that Moses has in mind is not that which flees from his presence, but that which longs to do his will” (Sailhamer, 1992, p. 439). When properly understood and taught, life becomes an act of worship before God. Hence, the Shema’s command to love God “is a gathering of terms to indicate the totality of a person’s commitment of self in the purest and noblest intentions of trust and obedience toward God” (Kalland, 1992, p. 64). Therefore, it becomes “a distinctive expression for the totality of right and devout relationship to God” (Kalland, 1992. p. 64). And a right relationship with God was foundational for the educational pursuits of the Hebrew mind.

Further, it should be noted that this command has roots in the very first command God gave to mankind. After God created the first man, scripture informs us that God put Adam in the garden to “tend and keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Sailhamer (1992) notes that a preferred translation is “worship and obey.” He writes, “The man is put in the Garden to worship God and obey him. The man’s life in the Garden was to be characterized by worship and obedience; he was to be a priest, not merely a worker and keeper of the Garden” (Sailhamer, 1992, p. 101). This has profound significance as it reveals God’s purpose in creating mankind. Man was created to worship God, and in his act(s) of worship, he is to follow God’s will. Therefore, life is an act of worship before God. This was Paul’s understanding of life (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Thus, education, and all of its pursuits, must begin with the understanding that truth is relational and is lived out as an act of worship before God.

A Living Truth

To say that truth is relational is to recognize that God can be known (John 17:3). God reveals himself to those who seek him. Since all knowledge finds it source in him, and he can be known, it then becomes evident that the root of knowledge is found in the person of God, not an abstraction. Connecting the idea of truth with his person, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The person of God and truth cannot be separated. Again, this is not to suggest that truth cannot be expressed propositionally, but that fundamentally, to best understand truth, one must first learn truth relationally. It is for this reason that in conjunction with the command to love God, parents are commanded to teach their children about God. Parents are the means God has ordained and commanded to educate children to learn to love, follow, and obey God. From God’s perspective, this is the starting point for all educational endeavors.

Using parents to teach about God as a first principle of learning is in keeping with the very nature of God as a Trinity. God has revealed himself as three in one. God is perfect unity in oneness. Sailhamer (1992) wrote that, “God is relationship in perfect harmony.” Indeed, the word translated “one” in the above scriptural quote, “The LORDyour God … is one,” comes from the Hebrew אֶחָד (echad). The word communicates a plurality of oneness and literally means “to be united” (Sailhamer, n.d.). This word must be seen in contrast with the numeric word יָחִיד (yachiyd). This word conveys solitary oneness, as in ‘one and only,’ and is never used as a modifier for God. The Holy Spirit has chosen that only the word אֶחָד accurately describes the nature (oneness) of God. Hence, the process of education is rooted in God’s relational nature. For education to be most effective, then, this process (as commanded by God) must be followed.

A Path Forward

Earlier, it was observed that Christian education often overlooks the reality that the American education system is rooted in a Greek learning methodology. Because of Greek influence, American education is grounded in a didactic teaching method (Augustsson & Boström, 2016). So too the church has adopted the same educational format as its surrounding culture. Students, whether children or adults, sit under a professional who gives propositional instruction. It is expected that the student learns the required lesson and seeks to implement what has been learned (Aagaard, n.d.). Contrast that method with how Jesus taught the twelve disciples. His method of educating them was relational rather than didactic. It followed the same format God gave parents in Deuteronomy. His students lived with him for three years. It was in the context of that relationship that truth was communicated and lived out. This teaching method was so effective that, after his ascension, his disciples were recognized as wise men, intellectually capable, and courageous. In the book of Acts, Peter and John were arrested and, during the subsequent interrogation, it was observed: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

If parents are to effectively utilize the relational method to teach their children, there are two alternatives churches and families can adopt. The first is for churches to intentionally equip parents to disciple their children as followers of Christ. While being a part of the church body is both commanded and necessary, it is ultimately the responsibility of parents, not children’s ministers or youth pastors, to teach, lead, and demonstrate to their children what loving, following, and obeying God looks like. Parents must be taught themselves and then use the relational model to intentionally teach their children at home. The second alternative is to expand on the first and choose to homeschool the children. In our current culture that emphasizes the necessity of the professional, this is often seen as out of reach for parents. But consider that “this is not a new practice; in fact, throughout most of human history, parents bore the responsibility for their children’s education” (Neuman & Guterman, 2017, p. 148). But homeschooling has an added advantage: it extends the discipleship journey throughout the educational process. And while this may seem daunting to some, a few factors must be considered.

The first addresses matters of faith. Will the God who commands parents to teach their children abandon them when they choose to follow God’s will? The same God who made provision for our sins through the life, death, and resurrection of his Son can also make provision for parents to successfully navigate this journey. Second, homeschooling has proven to be not only a viable educational alternative but an effective one as well. Homeschooled children have consistently been top achievers in metrics such as GPA, ACT, and SAT scores, as well as college admissions (Gloeckner & Jones, 2013, p. 310). Further, studies have shown that children’s success does not depend on the educational merits of their parents (Lubienski, Puckett, & Brewer, 2013, p. 379). In other words, kids can be effectively educated without the professional class that society has come to depend on.

Further, given the biblical data, homeschooling not only gives parents the flexibility to raise their children to know, love, value, and obey God, but also recognizes that raising children to know God is a God-given right (Kunzman, 2010, p. 18-19). God desires that “the little children come” to him (Matt. 19:14); and it is the parents’ responsibility to make that happen. While professionals can teach propositional knowledge that will enable kids to be contributing members of society, they cannot teach them to know, love, value, and obey God, and without the true relational knowledge of God, their education will be eternally incomplete.

 

References

Aagaard, E. (n.d.) Power Point lesson: Strategies for effective “Didactic” teaching. Academy of Medical Educators. Retreived from on 20 Jan 19: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/education/graduatemedicaleducation/GMEDocuments/Documents/14.%20Chiefs%20Retreat%20Presentations/Didactic%20Teaching.pdf

Anthony, M. J., & Benson, W. S. (2011). Exploring the history and philosophy of Christian education: Principles for the 21st century. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Augustsson, G., & Boström, L. (2016). Teachers ‘leadership in the didactic room: systematic literature review of international research. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(3), 19-sider. Retrieved on 30 Jan 19 from: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1037483/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Bromiley, G. (1988). The International standard Bible encyclopedia (Fully revised.), vol 3. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans.

Chambliss, J.J. (2003). John Dewey’s philosophy of education before democracy and education. Education and Culture. Spring, 2003 Vol. XIX No. 1. Retrieved from: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1455&context=eandc

Dreher, R. (2017). The Benedict option: a strategy for Christian’s in a post Christian nation. New York, NY: Sentinel.

Gloeckner, G. W., & Jones, P. (2013). Reflections on a decade of changes in homeschooling and the homeschooled into higher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 309-323. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2013.796837

Grant, M. (1989). The Classical Greeks. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Guterman, O. & Neuman, A. (2017). The Role of Family and Parental Characteristics in the Scope of Social Encounters of Children in Homeschooling. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 26: 2782. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s10826-017-0773-x

Kalland, E. (1992). Philippians. In F. E. Gæbelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version: Vol. 3. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel. (pp. 63-64). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Kunzman, R. (2010). Homeschooling and religious fundamentalism. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(1), 17-28.

Lindemann, Rob, (2016). Pedagogy for Christian worldview formation: a grounded theory study of Bible College teaching methods. Ed.D dissertation, George Fox University, United States – Orgeon. Retrived 1 Jan 19 from: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/edd/71

Lubienski, C., Puckett, T., & Brewer, T. J. (2013). Does homeschooling “work”? A critique of the empirical claims and agenda of advocacy organizations. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 378.

Moghal, S. (n.d.) John Dewey Power Point Presentation: Philosophy of Education. Retrieved 1/28/19 from: https://www.academia.edu/25402239/John_Dewey_Philosophy_of_Education

Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2017). Homeschooling is not just about education: Focuses of meaning. Journal of School Choice, 11(1), 148-167. doi:10.1080/15582159.2016.1262231

Pearcey, N. (2004). Total truth: Liberating Christianity from its cultural captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Reinert, P. (1939). Book review, naturalism in American education. Thought: Fordham Univeristy Quarterly. v.14(1). March. p. 134-35. Retrieved from: https://www-pdcnet-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/thought/content/thought_1939_0014_0001_0134_0135.

Sailhamer, J. H. (1992). The pentateuch as narrative: A biblical-theological commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan

Sailhamer, J.H. Non-published work: דְּבָרִים Biblical Hebrew Words. A compellation of vocabulary words.

Walter E. (1997). Entry for ‘Education in Bible Times.’ Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Retrieved 1/28/19 from: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/education-in-bible-times.html

Wright, C. (1996). New international biblical commentary : Deuteronomy. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.