Is Teacher 'Belief' Important for Educational Transformation?

I’ve been working on a book over the past year with a group of theologians and educators that is exploring what is distinctive about Christian education. We see a strong connection between faith and educational priorities and decision-making. But we live in an age where teaching is seen as a secular activity and where the teacher is meant to dispassionately separate or even suppress their personal beliefs as they teach the children of other parents. This of course wasn’t how teaching was always seen. In fact, for much of human history, teaching was seen as a deeply religious activity, that is, something guided by beliefs shaped by an understanding of an ‘Ultimate Reality’ concerning the cause, purpose and nature of life and the universe. I am of the view that it is virtually impossible for the act of teaching to be free of religious belief.

Peter Hodgson in his helpful book ‘God’s Wisdom’ reminds us that people of ancient, medieval and early modern times saw teaching as shaped by religious objects like truth, goodness, beauty and holiness, and a religious power (e.g. God) or agents (e.g. the Torah) as the ultimate teacher. While in a secular society like Australia this is seen as inappropriate by many, one might question what we end up with in the absence of foundational beliefs shaped by an understanding of God. Indeed, there is some evidence that modern theorists who see no place for God struggle to find a focus for education and tend to reach out for some religious or moral significance on which to peg or anchor the theories.

In the absence of foundational religious belief, educators at times present foundational principles, ‘conditions’ and values, which are religious in nature and while at times they are presented as based on evidence, they are just as often reflective of specific beliefs.

Martin Buber

Almost 90 years ago Martin Buber suggested that it should not surprise us that educators grapple for an inner religious impulse to be in the service of ‘One’ who can do things that they cannot. The hidden God he suggested is known in the “in between” of dialogical relationships that are at the heart of education.

We can see this tendency in the most surprising places. For example, the work of Gloria Watkins, an African American Professor of English and feminist scholar (who used the pen name ‘bell hooks’) illustrates this tendency. In her book ‘Teaching to Transgress’ (1994) she draws on Paulo Freire’s work to argue that true freedom is to “Teach in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our students…if we are to provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately begin.”

John Dewey

In sharing Paulo Freire’s passion for the liberating power of education to offer freedom from oppression, Watkins argues that we must demonstrate that anyone can learn. Teaching she suggests “…is a performative act... that offers the space for change, invention, spontaneous shifts, that can serve as a catalyst drawing out the unique elements in each classroom.” Teaching can change people and liberate them to realise their potential and change the world. Peter Hodgson argues that this power of transformation that writers like Watkins speaks of is “a sacred power”.

While not suggesting that education is a religious activity, American philosopher, psychologist and educator John Dewey also offered echoes of the sacred as he argued for the role of education as a key to renewal and human transformation. And yet, Dewey was one of the founders of pragmatism and his work was a catalyst for varied progressive approaches to education and the championing of education’s role in ensuring democracy. He wrote the following words in his well-known work ‘Democracy and Education’ (1916):

“By various agencies, unintentional and designed, a society transforms uninitiated and seemingly alien beings into robust trustees of its own resources and ideals. Education is thus a fostering, a nurturing, a cultivating, process. All of these words mean that it implies attention to the conditions of growth. We also speak of rearing, raising, bringing up - words which express the difference of level which education aims to cover. Etymologically, the word education means just a process of leading or bringing up. When we have the outcome of the process in mind, we speak of education as shaping, forming, molding activity -- that is, a shaping into the standard form of social activity.”

While Dewey and others grasp for words to explain the essence of what they believe, words like “ideals” lead us to ask, on what foundations are these based? But for Freire and Dewey, it is education that liberates and sets people free, whereas the Bible teaches that only Christ can offer true emancipation and freedom (Gal 5:3). The transformation that Freire’s education or that of Dewey offers is a pale shadow of the transformation that is possible in Christ (Rom 12:1-2).

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Education is indeed about transformation, but I believe that it is much more than just the transformation of knowledge and behaviour. The Bible doesn't say a lot directly about education, but the picture that it presents of the transformed life in Christ is relevant to our thinking. The Christ-centred life is one under the direction and authority of God; and is made possible by God's grace in sending his son to take the punishment for our sins and to restore our relationship with him. The life God demands of us is one that leads to a renewing of our minds and the transforming of our life priorities. The biblical message of transformation in Romans 12:9-21 is a life of very high expectations made possible by Christ.

"9Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

While not all readers of this blog will accept the message of the Bible, my challenge to all would be to consider the ultimate goals of an education system that seeks to strip away any basis of belief or faith. From what will it draw its priorities and what will be the marks of the graduate of the system of education that is created? My comments above will raise many questions. Am I saying that you have to be a Christian to be a good teacher, or is the only good school a Christian school? The short answer to both is no. But what I am saying is that what teachers believe matters, and that their beliefs have an impact on the type of education that is offered. I will return to this topic again in 2011.

Seeing is Not Believing

Second Lecture to be Broadcast!

As many of the readers of this blog know Professor Jeremy Begbie presented a series of talks and performances in September for the 2010 New College Lectures at the University of New South Wales (Sydney). The series had the theme ‘Music, Modernity and God’ and addressed three sub themes – ‘Creativity’, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Language’. Below you will find references and links to a variety of resources on his work.

His second lecture in the series will be broadcast this Sunday evening (5th December) at 6.00pm Sydney AEST time and again at 1.00pm Tuesday. The lecture will be broadcast on Rachael Kohn's program 'The Spirit of Things' on ABC Radio National.   International readers should be able to listen to the broadcast HERE. Please note that this second lecture will be posted on the New College website as a podcast once the program has aired.

On night two of the Lectures Prof Begbie began by posing the proposition ‘Can we be free with God in our space?’ He challenged the notion that having a creator God in our space can only lead inevitably to a battle between the two. He also suggested that music can help us to understand deep biblical concepts such as the Trinity and the concept of freedom as spoken of in John 8:36 “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

With wonderful clarity he suggested that at times our use of words and even images has offered almost sub-Christian explanations of deep truths like the Trinity. Music he suggested can help us to understand biblical metaphor and biblical truth in new ways. Not as a replacement for word and image but in addition to it.

I will never forget how he demonstrated ‘sympathetic resonance’ to show how two sounds do not need to be in opposition, and can indeed work together - the upper note helping the lower note to resonate – one enhancing the other, not constraining it but helping to make it the unique sound the composer meant it to be.

So too, the biblical explanation of freedom in Christ suggests that rather than taking away our freedom, God frees us from enslavement to sin and rebellion and enables us to be free to become the people he meant us to be (John 8:36). A profound truth demonstrated in the simplest of ways.

Other resources

1. Two great interviews

a) Jeremy Begbie was interviewed (at the keyboard) on Hope 103.2 radio station during the lectures and this was broadcast on the 19th September on the 'Open House' program.  You can listen to the program by downloading an MP3 file or listening online HERE.

b) ABC Radio National's Rachael Kohn interviewed Jeremy on 'The Spirit of Things' during the Lectures. This program was aired on the 26th September and can be downloaded or listened to HERE.

2. Jeremy's Case article

If you would like to read some of Jeremy Begbie’s work, the recent article he wrote for CASE is a great place to start – ‘Polyphony of life: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’. The whole issue of Case #23 in which it appears is devoted to the theme ‘Music and Theology’ and I have reviewed it HERE. The magazine can be purchased HERE.

3. My summary of the Lectures

You can read the post in which I summarised the Lectures HERE.

4. Jeremy's latest book

Jeremy Begbie’s most recent book ‘Resounding Truth: Christian Wisdom in the World of Music’ (2007) also covers some of the content of the lectures. He also has a new book in preparation but this won’t be available for 18-24 months.

5. Other related posts

'Music, Life & Worship' (here)

Freedom to choose: A biblical perspective

Is this fish free?

Freedom is a word on everybody’s lips. It seems everyone places high priority on personal freedom. However, the focus of individual desire for freedom often finds expression in varied ways:

• The economist wants free trade
• The feminist wants to be free from male oppression
• African nationalists want freedom from colonial rule
• The capitalist wants to be free from government control
• The teenager wants to freedom to make their own choices

Don Carson in his recent book “Christ and Culture Revisited” suggests that the desire for freedom is one of the big 4 cultural forces in secular western societies (along with secularisation, democracy and lust for power).

The freedoms people are seeking involve freedom from something – from oppression, control, fear, traditions, poverty, social institutions or values and so on. But as Tim Keller points out in his book The Reason for God - Belief in an Age of Skepticism:

Freedom, then, is not the absence of limitations and constraints but it is finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us.

Freedom and God's purposes

The picture of the fish above alludes to this idea that human freedom is related to God’s purposes for our lives. Tim Keller uses this illustration to make this point about freedom.

“A fish, because it absorbs oxygen from water rather than air, is only free if it is restricted and limited to water. If we take it off the hook and put it on the grass, its freedom to move and even to live is not enhanced, but destroyed. The fish dies if we do not honour the reality of its nature.”

Keller goes on to argue that freedom isn’t simply the absence of confinement and constraint. In fact, confinement and constraint can actually be a means to liberation.

But talk to non-Christian friends and you will see that the image of Christianity today is not freedom but bondage. Christians are the fun police and Christianity is a religion of don’ts. Many show their opposition in varied ways: “I want to do what I want to do.” “My sexuality is my business.” “It’s my body, I’ll decide what I do with it.” “Don’t tell be how to behave.”

Where can we go in the Bible for help in responding to our friend’s challenges in this area? Gal 5, Romans 6, John 8, and 1 Peter 2 are all good places to start.

Freedom from the law

Paul tells the Galatian Church (Gal 5:1-15) that they are free from the law and must avoid the temptation to believe that more is needed to experience true freedom.

“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery”

Because tells the Galatians that because Christ has them free, that they are to enjoy the glorious freedom that it brings. They must not drift back into thinking that they can win favour with God by their own obedience or observance of the law. The law won't help the Galatians or us. Like them we can never be good enough in the eyes of God to earn his favour, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).

Freedom from sin

But Paul tells the Galatians that there is a second form of slavery that they had escaped. They are not just free from the law, they are also free from sin.

“13For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” (Gal 5:13)

Paul has more to say in Romans 6 on our freedom from sin in Christ.

15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Choosing slavery

Paul makes the point here that we aren't just free from sin and the law, we replace one form of slavery with another. You become slaves of the gospel (v17), a slave of righteousness (v18) and finally a slave of God (v22).

The imagery here is of the voluntary slavery – self-surrender leading to slavery (v 16). The voluntary slave was one often living in poverty who could offer themselves as slaves to someone simply in order to be fed and housed.

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16)

Like voluntary slaves we have a choice – slavery to sin or righteousness. Jesus taught that no-one can be slaves to two masters (Matt 6:24).

There is a wonderful progression here: conversion involves self-surrender; self-surrender in turn leads to slavery; and slavery demands uncompromising obedience.

17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Rom 6:17-18)

John Stott reminds us that: “We have here an exchange of slaveries. Each slavery is a kind of freedom (one authentic and the other spurious) and each type of freedom is a kind of slavery (one leads to death and the other life)”.

We were made for slavery to righteousness in accordance with the manufacturer’s design. It is possible for the fish to be free of the restraint of the pond, but if this freedom is not consistent with the way he was designed, it is a false freedom that leads to destruction. So too, for humans. If the freedom we seek is not in accord with God’s purposes then it is pointless freedom. No, the fish isn't free, and neither are we when we try to live our lives separate from God. We were made to give our lives in obedience to Christ, there can be no true freedom outside Christ. Jesus said:

"If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

Related links

A review of Tim Keller's The Reason for God can be found here.

Bill Henson Part 5: When can children decide for themselves?

Some background

Regular readers of this blog know that I've written a number of posts about the photographic art of Bill Henson and the debate about the inappropriateness of using photographs of naked children for artistic purposes. You can follow the threads of the earlier debate and my critique here.

For overseas readers of this blog here is some brief background. Henson was at the centre of a major controversy caused by an art exhibition featuring his photographic work. He is a one of Australia's most famous living artists and has gained widespread international acclaim. However, in May this year the police were called to a gallery where his latest exhibition was to be opened. A number of members of the public had taken exception to images of naked children used for advertising the exhibition and some which were placed on the gallery website. Henson has for many years included photographs of young pubescent children in his work. In his own words he likes to express "..ideas about humanity and vulnerability and our sense of ourselves living inside our bodies and our bodies in space" and has been interested in the transition from childhood to adulthood (amongst other things). The police originally charged him and the gallery owners, but eventually the charges were dropped. However, interest in Henson and his art continues to attract comment and debate.

The latest twist to the controversy

Just when many of us had forgotten about Henson, he has broken his five month long silence with an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald (here). This was followed the day after by extracts from a book concerning the Henson case in the Herald's weekend magazine. The extracts are from a forthcoming book by David Marr, "The Henson Case". It took just hours for the first article and the extracts to cause further concern. In both the article and the extract Henson shared that "he has been invited into schools in his search for models". In his words "I went in there, had a look around at lunchtime, just wandered around while everyone was having their lunch....I saw this boy, and I saw this girl too actually, and I thought they would be great and the principal said, 'Fine, I will give the parents a ring and let you know'. So the ball is always in their court...."

One can only wonder why a school principal would allow an artist into a school to search for children who might be suitable for nude modelling without the consent of parents to be there for this purpose.

Curiously, Marr seems to have shared this detail in his forthcoming book (and in the extract) in an attempt to present Henson as a normal decent bloke who also happens to be a great artist. I have no reason to doubt that both these propositions might be correct. As my previous posts should indicate, I have never accused Henson of having wrong motives, and I have always acknowledged his ability as an artist. What I continue to question is his use of naked children as his subjects and the way that they are presented. The SMH article on Friday suggests that he still doesn't get this. I find it incredible that neither Marr nor Henson can grasp that your average parent would feel quite uncomfortable about someone visiting a school to look for appropriate models. But that's not why I've written this post, I'll leave this part of the debate to others. What I want to comment on is Henson and the child's parents approach to parenting.

The folly of children being able to make such choices

One of the clear themes of the David Marr extract is that parents are closely involved at all stages of Henson's work and that the children themselves make the final decision to pose or not to pose. The reference to visiting schools and the manner in which children were solicited as models also appears to be an attempt to rather naively suggest that parents are involved from the start.

On three occasions Marr uses quotes from Henson and the mother of the young girl referred to as "N" to make the point that it is the child who makes the final choice:

"They gain some strength because it's (i.e. posing for Henson) a big decision to make, and no one can really make it for them." Quote from Henson

"...We have always given our children a voice in our family and as an educator I know the value for kids to take responsibility and learn through authentic life experience. N is accustomed to making decisions, trusting her instincts and she certainly has a pretty good handle on what is right and what is wrong." Quote from the mother of the 12-year old girl "N" featured in naked poses.

"....we were a bit concerned about N's self esteem as she was at the tricky time in her life anticipating the horror of starting high school....this was an extremely stressful time for her. We felt that working with Bill would give her a bit of a boost and help her regain her confidence (and it did). Ultimately it was her decision........." Quote from the mother of the 12-year old girl "N".


The view that a twelve year-old not only can make such decisions, but should, reflects the lie of liberalism that humans and their children should be free, in John Locke’s terms, “…to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man”. The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that any restriction on liberty must be justified, freedom to choose is always the default position.

Henson and the mother of N, like many parents immersed in a society that fails to question such ideas, have accepted the argument of philosophers like John Stuart Mill that one basis for endorsing freedom is by developing individuality and cultivating capacities ‘…it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings.’

The good life for the liberal philosopher is one that you freely choose. Such a life is characterised by a person developing his or her unique capacities as part of a plan for their life; this is still the most significant liberal ethic shaping the way some parents raise their children.

What follows from this thinking is that being a good parent is all about helping our children to make good choices themselves. Ultimately, they argue, the child must choose. Which like all ideas has some truth. Of course we want children and adults to be able to make good choices, but we cannot assume that if we allow total freedom to do so, that they will. The folly of applying this to a 12 year-old should be obvious. Yes, good parents encourage their children to make good choices, they help them to think through the rights and wrongs of any choices, as well as the consequences. There are many decisions for which we hope children might take early responsibility: Will I do my homework? Should I lie to my parents about why I was late home from school? Should I disobey my mum? But can, and should, a 12 year-old decide whether she should pose nude or not? I don't think so. Children should be helped to grow in their ability to make good choices in life, but at age 12 years parents need to be wise in deciding in which areas they will give them the freedom to choose.

We live in a society where there is a need to accept that one's choices are made in relation to other people. Our choices have an impact on other people. That's why there is great wisdom in the Bible's teaching that all are under the authority of others (see for example Ephesians 5:15-6:9). First and foremost, we are accountable to God. But we also are accountable and have responsibility to the state. Then we have various relationships with each other, some of which involve authority structures. Children are under the authority of their parents and parents in turn are responsible to teach their children, to take responsibility for them, to love and to care for them, and to help them make right choices. When they are young, or too immature to make the decision in question, then the parents must make the choice for them.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honour your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." (Ephesians 6:1-3)

Of course, this begs the question, what if parents make bad or wrong choices? If this happens, then it is our hope that the law will protect the child, and other children who might be impacted by the family's 'freedom' to choose. The whole 'Henson Case' shows that perhaps our laws need some strengthening.

Oilver O'Donovan Speaks on Political Theology

Oliver O’Donovan is this year to present the New College Lectures. He is in Australia at the invitation of the College to deliver the lectures and to speak to residents at a formal dinner. The first official component of his visit took place on Wednesday when Oliver delivered a short address to the 250 residents of New College, plus a few life fellows and staff. The largely non-Christian audience of 18-20 year olds (about 30% of residents are Christians) were privileged to hear a brilliant address on political responsibility. His talk challenged them and provided an introduction to political theology and urged them to consider their responsibility to the nation. In doing so he addressed a theme that readers of his work (as in books such as The Desire of the Nations) would recognise – that through the nation of Israel God made known his purposes in the world. A kingly rule expressed in Israel’s corporate existence and brought to final effect in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And of course he spoke of true freedom.

Australians he argued are a people with a government that serves the provision of freedom – being effective and being able to carry through purposes into action. Such a structure requires cooperation and collaboration. Quoting Rousseau he suggested to our residents that they are “not born free…… unless we are born into a society that makes us free.”

The New Testament he suggested sums up the role of government in two ways: it is a “minister of God” and it is a “human institution”. It exists to serve the will of God that there should be government and it exists to give order and shape to human society and its affairs.

He also explored the notion of representation - government is “representative”. Representation he suggested is a concept based directly on the model of Christ’s representative role in relation to the human race. Jesus is the one who suffers and triumphs for us, in whose suffering we suffer, in whose triumph we triumph. But the key to political representation is that authority is conferred by it. Government must be identity-bearing, speaking for the people, at the same time as it commands the people.

In challenging New College residents to consider their political responsibility he suggested that commitment to their nation required something that ancient Israel demonstrated, memory. The Israelites were a people with the consciousness of a common history. Second, they could see in their history how God’s providence had worked through their history to preserve and sustain them.

While introducing significant biblical themes he also posed some significant and practical questions. Can a nation of great cultural diversity develop a shared memory? How do people with family stories that are not bound up with the memories of this country develop shared memory? Can they make the memories of this country their own and recognise the hand of God in the events of their lives and that of the nation?

“How can there be a common memory when some memories can be very bitter? This is a common problem of ex-colonial nations such as Australia, in which the legacy of the colonial experiment is a terrible mixture of constructiveness and destructiveness. How is the memory of indigenous Australians to be held together in one with the memory of those whose people came from Europe? Will memory not be conflictual, tying us into repeating patterns of destructive behaviour? Much memory is not true memory at all, but obsessive images - often of violence and injury - which leap out at us from their context in the past and trail around with us in the present. Joseph’s brothers recalled the moment when they threw Joseph into the pit and sat down cold-bloodedly to decide how to dispose of him. And around the image of their own past guilt all their insecurity and nervousness collected. But they were not really remembering, since their attention was hooked on this one moment, and did not lead them on to think of Joseph’s success in Egypt and his role as deliverer. They had not learned to say, “but God meant it for good”. Good historians can always give us that view.”

There is much in these comments that resonate with the challenges we face as a nation, and pointers to the biblical insights that apologists might bring to bear when commenting on contemporary issues that we face collectively.

Case #12 will be in the mail this week (if you’re a CASE associate) in which an article by Oliver O’Donovan will appear. Don’t forget the New College Lectures next week (4,5 & 6th Sept). Come and hear one of the most outstanding Christian Ethicists of our time. Consult the New College Website for details. You might just be able to RSVP on Monday but that will need to be the cut-off, we have had a big response.