For those of you who break out in cold sweats when you recall those times in school when your math teacher asked you to calculate the surface area of an irregular obligoid, using only a paper, pencil, and an ancient slide rule - don't worry. I'm not going to discuss geometry today! But we are going to think about cones in relation to Christian education.
A former pastor of mine has expressed concerns about the notion of "a" Christian view of education by pointing out that Christians - Bible-believing Christians - have come to diametrically opposite conclusions on many issues in school, all the while claiming Biblical authority for their views. (I'm paraphrasing his views here, but I trust not uncharitably.) For example, some Christian educators (especially in the South) look at the War Between the States as a time when the Bible-believing southern states were unrighteously attacked by liberal Unitarian northerners. On the other hand, other Christian educators (especially in the North) teach that the Civil War was God's judgment on the wicked practice of slavery in the South. Now who's right? Both sides claim Scriptural backing - but they can't both be correct. The conclusion my pastor friend draws is that we are wrong to try to come up with "the" Christian/Biblical view of the War of 1861-1865, "the" Christian/Biblical view of monetary inflation, "the" Christian/Biblical view of Moby Dick, "the" Christian/Biblical approach to teaching reading, etc. The correct approach, according to this pastor, is for us to realize that the Bible was not given to teach us such things and that we are wrong to try to use it in such a way. (His views are more nuanced than that, but I trust I am not being uncharitable to him.)
So what about this? Should we be seeking to apply Scripture to trigonometry, to handwriting, to chemistry, to computer programming? I believe so, based in part on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable...that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." God has inspired the Bible so that His people might be prepared for every way they might serve Him, in every area of life. This means the Word of God in Scripture applies to everything I might do, whether that is worshiping Him with His people on the Lord's Day, or engaging in my daily job, or raising my children, or studying biology, or learning about government and politics. The Bible deals with every aspect of my life.
But how do we account for differences among Christians? Here's where the cone helps us. Richard Pratt, former professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, spoke about the "cone of certainty." At the top of that cone - the point - are things about which Scriptural teaching is absolutely certain and clear. This would include things like the existence of God, the deity of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ, among other things. But as you move down the cone, and it becomes larger, there are more and more teachings encompassed, but there is decreasing certainty. For example, the teaching that Christ will return again in glory is at the top of the cone. But the timing of that return and the events surrounding it are further down the cone, and our understanding of those teachings is less certain. Move further toward the base of the cone and you get to things like what Paul meant about "baptism for the dead" (1 Cor. 15:29) or what Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was (2 Cor. 12:7).
Towards the top of the cone are doctrines that we would be willing to die for, if necessary, and which basically distinguish true believers from unbelievers. But as you move down the cone of certainty, you come to teachings for which you would probably be unwilling to die ("You can burn me at the stake, but I'll never deny that Paul's thorn in the flesh was an eye disease!"), and which should not lead to a break in fellowship. Some issues in the middle of the cone (should infants be baptized or not?) might lead to amicable separation for practical reasons (it's difficult for a single church to practice infant baptism and not offend those who believe it is an unbiblical practice), but they would not cause one group to say those in the other group are non-Christians.
Additionally, what we find is that, in general, growth in the Christian life also means moving our understanding of various doctrines upward on that cone. For example, when someone first becomes a Christian, his understanding that Jesus died for his sins would be at the top of his cone of certainty, but his realization that the atonement involved a double exchange (Christ took on his sins, and he took on the righteousness of Christ) might be rather fuzzy and further down the cone. As he grows in grace and the knowledge of the Word of God, though, he gains a clearer and more certain grasp of that concept. Likewise with doctrines such as election and predestination, the order of salvation, church government, and total depravity. (Of course, sometimes growth in the Christian life leads us to move some things down our cone of certainty. As we study Scripture more, we might find that those issues about which we were initially very certain become more nuanced and less obvious.)
Now let's apply this to the idea of a Christian view of education. A few issues in Christian schools would be close to the top of that cone - teaching children in science classes that God created all things by the Word of His power, for example, or teaching that pre-marital sex is wrong. But other teachings might be lower on the cone. Think about an economics class. At the top of the cone would be "theft is wrong." But as we begin to apply that understanding, we move further down the cone: "Business fraud is wrong" is higher than "Advertising which results in buyers being deceived is wrong," which is higher than "Advertising which can be misunderstood by buyers is wrong." Or maybe there's this movement down the cone of certainty: "Theft is wrong" --> "Government confiscation of property is wrong" --> "Eminent domain laws are wrong."
Do we then conclude that the Bible doesn't apply to these things, and that we shouldn't try to make it apply? I don't believe we should draw that conclusion. Just as with Biblical doctrine (the return of Christ, etc.), we can study Scripture more and more to try to gain more certainty about various doctrines, so I believe it is valid to study the Bible more and more to learn how it applies to math, to science, and to history in the classroom. But we should realize that those applications may be lower on the cone of certainty than issues such as the existence of God as creator. That doesn't stop us from drawing those conclusions, but it should make us more humble in teaching them. We can teach our students with certainty that theft is wrong. We can teach our students that free-market economics most faithfully applies the prohibition against theft, but it is not on the same level of certainty - I don't think a true Christian could say "stealing is good," but a true Christian could say "free-market economics is wrong." I would seek to persuade him otherwise by using Biblical teaching and application.
To draw this together, in humble disagreement with my former pastor, I believe our task as Christian educators is to seek to apply the Bible to every area of our studies. Many of those applications may be lower on the cone of certainty than other teachings, but that does not invalidate the process of applying the Bible in this way. May the Lord open our hearts more and more to His Word, as we seek to use it to be equipped for every good work!
A former pastor of mine has expressed concerns about the notion of "a" Christian view of education by pointing out that Christians - Bible-believing Christians - have come to diametrically opposite conclusions on many issues in school, all the while claiming Biblical authority for their views. (I'm paraphrasing his views here, but I trust not uncharitably.) For example, some Christian educators (especially in the South) look at the War Between the States as a time when the Bible-believing southern states were unrighteously attacked by liberal Unitarian northerners. On the other hand, other Christian educators (especially in the North) teach that the Civil War was God's judgment on the wicked practice of slavery in the South. Now who's right? Both sides claim Scriptural backing - but they can't both be correct. The conclusion my pastor friend draws is that we are wrong to try to come up with "the" Christian/Biblical view of the War of 1861-1865, "the" Christian/Biblical view of monetary inflation, "the" Christian/Biblical view of Moby Dick, "the" Christian/Biblical approach to teaching reading, etc. The correct approach, according to this pastor, is for us to realize that the Bible was not given to teach us such things and that we are wrong to try to use it in such a way. (His views are more nuanced than that, but I trust I am not being uncharitable to him.)
So what about this? Should we be seeking to apply Scripture to trigonometry, to handwriting, to chemistry, to computer programming? I believe so, based in part on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable...that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." God has inspired the Bible so that His people might be prepared for every way they might serve Him, in every area of life. This means the Word of God in Scripture applies to everything I might do, whether that is worshiping Him with His people on the Lord's Day, or engaging in my daily job, or raising my children, or studying biology, or learning about government and politics. The Bible deals with every aspect of my life.
But how do we account for differences among Christians? Here's where the cone helps us. Richard Pratt, former professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, spoke about the "cone of certainty." At the top of that cone - the point - are things about which Scriptural teaching is absolutely certain and clear. This would include things like the existence of God, the deity of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ, among other things. But as you move down the cone, and it becomes larger, there are more and more teachings encompassed, but there is decreasing certainty. For example, the teaching that Christ will return again in glory is at the top of the cone. But the timing of that return and the events surrounding it are further down the cone, and our understanding of those teachings is less certain. Move further toward the base of the cone and you get to things like what Paul meant about "baptism for the dead" (1 Cor. 15:29) or what Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was (2 Cor. 12:7).
Towards the top of the cone are doctrines that we would be willing to die for, if necessary, and which basically distinguish true believers from unbelievers. But as you move down the cone of certainty, you come to teachings for which you would probably be unwilling to die ("You can burn me at the stake, but I'll never deny that Paul's thorn in the flesh was an eye disease!"), and which should not lead to a break in fellowship. Some issues in the middle of the cone (should infants be baptized or not?) might lead to amicable separation for practical reasons (it's difficult for a single church to practice infant baptism and not offend those who believe it is an unbiblical practice), but they would not cause one group to say those in the other group are non-Christians.
Additionally, what we find is that, in general, growth in the Christian life also means moving our understanding of various doctrines upward on that cone. For example, when someone first becomes a Christian, his understanding that Jesus died for his sins would be at the top of his cone of certainty, but his realization that the atonement involved a double exchange (Christ took on his sins, and he took on the righteousness of Christ) might be rather fuzzy and further down the cone. As he grows in grace and the knowledge of the Word of God, though, he gains a clearer and more certain grasp of that concept. Likewise with doctrines such as election and predestination, the order of salvation, church government, and total depravity. (Of course, sometimes growth in the Christian life leads us to move some things down our cone of certainty. As we study Scripture more, we might find that those issues about which we were initially very certain become more nuanced and less obvious.)
Now let's apply this to the idea of a Christian view of education. A few issues in Christian schools would be close to the top of that cone - teaching children in science classes that God created all things by the Word of His power, for example, or teaching that pre-marital sex is wrong. But other teachings might be lower on the cone. Think about an economics class. At the top of the cone would be "theft is wrong." But as we begin to apply that understanding, we move further down the cone: "Business fraud is wrong" is higher than "Advertising which results in buyers being deceived is wrong," which is higher than "Advertising which can be misunderstood by buyers is wrong." Or maybe there's this movement down the cone of certainty: "Theft is wrong" --> "Government confiscation of property is wrong" --> "Eminent domain laws are wrong."
Do we then conclude that the Bible doesn't apply to these things, and that we shouldn't try to make it apply? I don't believe we should draw that conclusion. Just as with Biblical doctrine (the return of Christ, etc.), we can study Scripture more and more to try to gain more certainty about various doctrines, so I believe it is valid to study the Bible more and more to learn how it applies to math, to science, and to history in the classroom. But we should realize that those applications may be lower on the cone of certainty than issues such as the existence of God as creator. That doesn't stop us from drawing those conclusions, but it should make us more humble in teaching them. We can teach our students with certainty that theft is wrong. We can teach our students that free-market economics most faithfully applies the prohibition against theft, but it is not on the same level of certainty - I don't think a true Christian could say "stealing is good," but a true Christian could say "free-market economics is wrong." I would seek to persuade him otherwise by using Biblical teaching and application.
To draw this together, in humble disagreement with my former pastor, I believe our task as Christian educators is to seek to apply the Bible to every area of our studies. Many of those applications may be lower on the cone of certainty than other teachings, but that does not invalidate the process of applying the Bible in this way. May the Lord open our hearts more and more to His Word, as we seek to use it to be equipped for every good work!