# What Subjects are Neglected in Reformed Education?



## RamistThomist (Jun 19, 2007)

In surveying the Reformed landscape, what appear to be both the strengths and weaknesses in developing Reformed minds?


----------



## sastark (Jun 19, 2007)

In my experience, at the jr. high/high school level, an over emphasis is placed on classical literature at the sacrifice of more modern/"less Christian" literature. 

I'm blanking on examples right now (a result of a reformed education?  ), but most reformed schools that I know of hvae their kids read Shakespeare, but nothing from the 20th century (with the exception of C.S. Lewis, perhaps).

The same could be said of modern philosophy, I believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 19, 2007)

Note, I am not asking what are the most important subjects, but the ones that are currently neglected. 

I voted that Ethics/Logic/Philosophy are the most neglected whereas church history gets the most interest. 

John Frame made this point in his debate with Daryl Hart


> The leadership of the evangelical movement has to some extent
> passed from theologians, pastors, and apologists to church historians. The
> most prominent names among us today are people like Marsden, Noll, Wells, Muller, Horton, other ACE-minded folks, and so on. I've even heard the name
> of Darryl Hart listed among these worthies. I greatly admire the gifts of
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 19, 2007)

sastark said:


> In my experience, at the jr. high/high school level, an over emphasis is placed on classical literature at the sacrifice of more modern/"less Christian" literature.
> 
> I'm blanking on examples right now (a result of a reformed education?  ), but most reformed schools that I know of hvae their kids read Shakespeare, but nothing from the 20th century (with the exception of C.S. Lewis, perhaps).
> 
> The same could be said of modern philosophy, I believe.



I guess what I meant was "what are Reformed guys most likely to study?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Obviously evangelism/preaching/missions...not even included in the pool!



touche

I thought about adding more options to the pool but forgot about it at the last minute (I am in a meeting and got distracted).


----------



## JM (Jun 19, 2007)

Didn't mean to vote "Exegesis/Biblical Studies," I was click happy. If it's possible to remove that vote please do so.

Sorry.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 19, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Obviously evangelism/preaching/missions...not even included in the pool!





How many Reformed seminaries have programs in intercultural studies, evangelism and/or missions? I know RTS has a program in intercultural studies, and Westminster has an urban missions program, but that's all I can think of.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 20, 2007)

Jacob,

John has been complaining for years about the alleged asendency of Church Historians.

Pardon me, but I disagree very strongly.

Hart made a much better case in his inaugural address published in the WTJ that, in fact, it's bib studies, at least at the seminary level, that gets all the attention and church history is neglected.

Out of 109 credits, at WSC, MDiv students are required to take 9 credits of church history. Some of our MA students don't even have to take Medieval-Reformation. At WSC students take 4 hours of Christian mind (it was 5 hours when I had it!), 3 hours of modern mind, so they have 7 hours in prolgomena alone, not to mention God/Man (4), Christ (3), Holy Spirit (4) and church (3). 

In Med-Ref I get 4 hours to teach 1000 years of history and theology!

I suspect, based on things John has written, that he liked it better when church historians were seen but not heard! 

rsc



Draught Horse said:


> Note, I am not asking what are the most important subjects, but the ones that are currently neglected.
> 
> I voted that Ethics/Logic/Philosophy are the most neglected whereas church history gets the most interest.
> 
> John Frame made this point in his debate with Daryl Hart


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 20, 2007)

I agree with Scott with two additional points:

1. In every Presbytery I was in, it was the history exam that was consistently the weakest.

2. For everyday pastoral ministry, church history is an invaluable source of illustrative and applicative material. The average congregant needs to understand Augustine and Pelagius, the councils, etc. far more than venn-triangle diagrams.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 20, 2007)

I say all of this as a history major and am not knocking the discipline. Anyway, I don't think that Frame was arguing we need to include Venn diagrams in the exams.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 20, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> I agree with Scott with two additional points:
> 
> 1. In every Presbytery I was in, it was the history exam that was consistently the weakest.
> 
> 2. For everyday pastoral ministry, church history is an invaluable source of illustrative and applicative material. The average congregant needs to understand Augustine and Pelagius, the councils, etc. far more than venn-triangle diagrams.



I agree with Scott as well. We could have used more time in class to deal with the church fathers (and probably everything else that followed too!). 

Jacob:

When you said 'Reformed education' did you mean seminary, university, high school or all three?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 20, 2007)

Poimen said:


> I agree with Scott as well. We could have used more time in class to deal with the church fathers (and probably everything else that followed too!).
> 
> Jacob:
> 
> When you said 'Reformed education' did you mean seminary, university, high school or all three?



Not necessarily seminary. More along the lines of "what are Reformed people most likely to study if left to themselves?"


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 20, 2007)

I agree that church history is too often neglected. Many heresies would not arise again if we just knew our history better, especially patristic and reformed church history.


----------



## Civbert (Jun 20, 2007)

I think I've found only _one _seminary that offered a class in formal logic. And classic logic has lost favor to modern "existentialist" logic. The modern logic that is pushed in secular schools does not have much application for the theologian. But if more seminaries taught basic Aristotelian logic, it would help reduce some of the sloppy equivocal postmodern theology that is common today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 20, 2007)

Civbert said:


> I think I've found only _one _seminary that offered a class in formal logic. And classic logic has lost favor to modern "existentialist" logic. The modern logic that is pushed in secular schools does not have much application for the theologian. But if more seminaries taught basic Aristotelian logic, it would help reduce some of the sloppy equivocal postmodern theology that is common today.



I knew Anthony would agree with me!   , even if he doesn't agree with me on some points of logic.


----------



## Civbert (Jun 20, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> I knew Anthony would agree with me!   , even if he doesn't agree with me on some points of logic.


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy (Jun 20, 2007)

I know GTS's MDiv has a course in logic and one in rhetoric as well.

I was talking with my mother-in-law recently about how watered down public high school curriculum's seem to be now compared to what she experienced. It's no wonder the average American has lost the ability to think critically, when you can just watch a 30 second political add on TV and trust it to be TRUTH.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2007)

Carl F. H. Henry notes,



> Henry: I am very worried about the loss of the priority of the mind among evangelicals. This is a matter of great importance in the struggle for evangelical fidelity. It must not be forgotten. I would recommend that an upcoming evangelical theologian take a good course in logic, and spend some extensive practice putting it to work.



http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/henry interview.pdf

Just today I read a diatribe written by a Reformed guy who argued against Christian involvement in social affairs. He committed a number of basic fallacies, mainly the argument from silence fallacy. Even more embarrassing is the fact he is unaware of it.


----------



## Archlute (Aug 3, 2007)

I actually agree with Frame's analysis, and much of my agreement comes from observing some of the men mentioned in that essay attempting to answer student questions queried to them from the Scriptures. I was in a Q&A session with Hart last year after a discussion on one of his recent books (which itself is rather devoid of biblical exegesis) and he was posed a few questions from Scripture regarding the soundness of his thesis by some of the students in attendance. It was telling that he was completely tongue tied, and unable to answer the questions in any coherent manner.

These men are, by and large, historical exegetes rather than proficient biblical exegetes. They seek to push their agenda upon the Reformed/Evangelical churches by appealing to historical precedent, and while history is important, in Reformed and Evangelical churches it should never be definitive. That is why biblical exegesis should refuse take a backseat to what the counsels and fathers had to say. It is easily proven that at times the counsels and fathers made poor exegetical appeals (as one who has studied what they had to say on any number of exegetical papers that I have written in the past), and that they disagreed with one another on various points. The reformers did not make appeals to the fathers and counsels a final authority, although they knew them, respected them, and discussed them. 

Today, however, it seems that there are any number of men in the Reformed world who, as Frame asserts, take a particular historical paradigm, find support for it in the writings of the past, and use it to impose a narrow grid of what is acceptable in exegesis and theology. Even the doctrinal standards of our churches, which are in themselves a form of historical theology, recognize that they are only authoritative inasmuch as they adhere to the Scriptures (Lillback has a good essay on the quia verses the quatenus of confessional subscription, in the collection of essays on confessional subscription edited by David Hall).

What I find, is that many of these brothers seek to know the history and the doctrinal standards better than the Scriptures, as real exegesis is difficult work, and feel that they can appeal to that as an authority, whereas Frame is correct that the Scriptures should be (and have always been) the authority of sound Evangelical and Reformed churches. 

If one wants to talk history, it is no secret that the church, and particularly Reformed churches where scholarship is highly prized, has fallen numerous times in history to the seduction of academic prestige. It still happens, and thus the failure to confront the unbelief of the world with the Scriptures, rather than trying to get in with the "in crowd" of the academy through acceptable scholarship.

If I had a critique of some of my professors at WSC, that would be it. I was actually told be a professor there, held in high regard by many in the reformed world, that an apologetic paper I had written had "violated the canons of charitable scholarship", merely because I had called the unbelief of a respected philosopher for what it was, the voice of Satan whispering in the ear. I ask, "Since when have faithful churches been concerned with pleasing the unbelief of the academy?" - only since they have tried to lure the applause of the world. Btw, when I told him that Van Til used much of the phraseology found in my paper, and asked him if he would have failed _him_ for using that language of antithesis, he had no reply. That of course is because he recognized that he was indeed compromising the antithesis in apologetics. "Canons of charitable scholarship" and all, you know. Another prof reminded us in some of our biblical studies papers that we should employ the secular terms "BCE" and "CE" in our exegetical papers so that we would be heard in the academy, rather than to offend them with the Christocentric terms of B.C. and A.D (although he did not state it with nearly as much candor). Thankfully, a prof there whom I greatly respect, refuted that notion in a class given later that week.

It is funny, actually, that for all of the belittling that some of those ACE/historical theologians do towards the evangelical church regarding the compromises that those churches often make with popular culture, there is also a compromise that they themselves can be seen to make with academic culture. It doesn't matter if it's lowbrow or highbrow, it is still a compromise all the same.

All that to say that Frame is not nearly as off the mark as some think, and that when history, philosophy, and logic are given greater emphases in our classrooms than biblical exegesis and systematics (not that the former are unimportant to be familiar with by any means) we can be sure that the church will soon be in decline, as her life is always to be rooted in the Word. The other subjects are mere complimentary studies.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2007)

Wow. Better than I could ever say it.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 3, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I actually agree with Frame's analysis, and much of my agreement comes from observing some of the men mentioned in that essay attempting to answer student questions queried to them from the Scriptures. I was in a Q&A session with Hart last year after a discussion on one of his recent books (which itself is rather devoid of biblical exegesis) and he was posed a few questions from Scripture regarding the soundness of his thesis by some of the students in attendance. It was telling that he was completely tongue tied, and unable to answer the questions in any coherent manner.
> 
> These men are, by and large, historical exegetes rather than proficient biblical exegetes. They seek to push their agenda upon the Reformed/Evangelical churches by appealing to historical precedent, and while history is important, in Reformed and Evangelical churches it should never be definitive. That is why biblical exegesis should refuse take a backseat to what the counsels and fathers had to say. It is easily proven that at times the counsels and fathers made poor exegetical appeals (as one who has studied what they had to say on any number of exegetical papers that I have written in the past), and that they disagreed with one another on various points. The reformers did not make appeals to the fathers and counsels a final authority, although they knew them, respected them, and discussed them.
> 
> ...



Why not withdraw completely from the academic community? After all, any attempt to dialogue is just compromise, right? Brother, it seems to me that you make a good argument on one hand: Reformed can tend to cling to their historical/confessional identity with more fervor than Scripture. Calling us to a greater awareness of Scripture could not be more important -- it is our defining story as a people. On the other hand, our very commitment to Scripture also compels us to engage our broken culture in a posture that recognizes the _imago dei_ inherent in the human. This means that we attempt to understand another person's beliefs and opinions _from within_, reserving our critique until we have done so sufficiently. This courtesy is the prerequisite for any academic discussion in the liberal arts, for without it, how could any real dialogue take place?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2007)

I don't think he is saying withdraw from the academic community. He is critiquing the move that "let's be academically respectable" which requires a watering down of the more antithetical tenets of Christian engagement.


----------



## Archlute (Aug 7, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I don't think he is saying withdraw from the academic community. He is critiquing the move that "let's be academically respectable" which requires a watering down of the more antithetical tenets of Christian engagement.



Sorry, I was offline for a few days. Thanks for stepping in, Jacob.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 28, 2007)

I was thinking about it--and my original comments stand--I am certainly not attacking the need for historical study. My most useful class at RTS was Andy Hoffecker's Church History. Ironically, that sharpened my philosophical/apologetical abilities more than anything else. 

How many great Reformed philosophers are there today? Great in the sense that their books alter the course of debate. Not watering down convictions but actually writing stuff that that forces the secular world to pay attention? Alvin Plantinga? Wolterstorff? And those guys are Reformed in the sense of a John Frame.


----------

