THE CHALLENGE OF EDUCATIONAL WHOLENESS: LINKING BELIEFS, VALUES AND ACADEMICS + ARLIN C. MIGLIAZZO + Associate Professor of History Whitworth College The topic I would like to address here has caused me more difficulty than any other I have faced since I began my teaching career in 1977. Perhaps that is why I have the audacity to raise the issue before my more theologically and academically mature colleagues. I think my boldness also proceeds from the fact that I have experienced two midlife crises since 1986 and have entered with a vengeance into my third over the past few months. Pondering the ultimates of one's existence has a tendency to focus one's vision. I imagine that is what my recent sabbatical was supposed to do even though it never appeared on my sabbatical leave proposal form. I do believe that the topic before us is of paramount importance as it embodies the entire raison d'être for Christian higher education. I At his inaugural address as president of my home institution more than ten years ago, Dr. Robert H. Mounce clearly and succinctly reiterated the unique function of the Christian college: The Christian college not only provides a coherent approach to all reality (the integration of faith and learning) but can provide the basis for the development of a new cohesive social force. It is mankind's best and only hope to win the race against catastrophe.1 1 Dr. Arthur De Jong's recently published book takes much the same focus as do many other studies by scholars who have obviously done more thinking on the subject than I.2 Why then do I bother to add my pepper to the pot? I do so because I believe that for all the talk about the integration of faith and learning, values and faith, faith and life-or any other way we wish to market it in our public relations literature, we faculty members are, more often than not, at a loss as to how to link beliefs, values and academics in appropriate and legitimate ways in the classroom. Indeed, one of our colleagues from a respected Christian college recently told me that his peers would rather not even talk about the issue-I suspect more out of frustration as to how to go about the process than out of any philosophical quarrel with the concept of educational wholeness. And this I believe is the heart of the problem for us. We tend to glance at the floor and fidget in our seats whenever we hear "the integration of faith and learning" bandied about by administrators or admissions counselors intent upon wooing prospective students. We react with ambivalence not because we do not wish to be about the task of integration, but because, if we are truly honest with ourselves, we are not sure on a practical level how to pull if off in an engaging manner. Perhaps there was a time when Christian higher education could provide a truly Christian education without directly confronting the values and assumptions inherent in 2 American culture or clearly articulating an orthodox Christian worldview. Whether or not legitimacy of this nature was achieved in the past, I am convinced that it is no longer an option, although this approach continues to be the modus operandi at many institutions. It was at the Christian college I attended in the early 1970s, and it has been in many ways at the Christian institutions at which I have taught since the early 1980s. These institutions are quite different from each other but the result tends to be the same. Students can and do graduate without ever confronting the implications of their faith upon the disciplines they study, the careers they choose to pursue, or the neighborhoods in which they live. The school I attended as an undergraduate is typical of the Christian "Message-dominant" college. Message-dominant schools tend to be on the biblically conservative end of the theological spectrum and usually have a fairly precise faith statement which students and faculty must sign. Message-dominant schools place heavy emphasis on the message of the Gospel with the proclamation of the Word preeminently occurring during regular (and usually mandatory) chapel, spiritual renewal conferences, and the healthy dose of Bible and/or doctrine courses incorporated into the general education core of the institution. Classes are often begun with prayer. These programs and practices are built into the Message-dominant colleges and are the primary agents which make the education one receives there "Christian." 3 On the other hand, Whitworth College, where I now teach, is typical of a "Life-dominant" college. As with most Life-dominant schools it is theologically more moderate than its counterparts in the previous category. There is no faith statement which must be honored, but there are a few regulatory guidelines drawn up so as to demonstrate that these are not just Christian taboos, but they also are validated by the most recent sociological and psychological research. This is apparently necessary because non-Christian students are allowed to matriculate at Whitworth as they are at most other Life-dominant Christian colleges. In most of these colleges, professors must have a Christian faith commitment although there is a latitude allowed for the outworking of this commitment that many more conservative Christians might find somewhat disconcerting. While there are regular chapel services (one per week), students are not required to attend so most do not. Neither do most faculty. There are also other opportunities for spiritual renewal on the Life-dominant campus, but the optional nature of these programs seems to doom them to sparse participation. One biblical literature class meets the religion requirement for graduation in our college. Some Life-dominant institutions may have no Bible or doctrine requirement for these colleges place much greater store in the active life of the student in response to Christ's call than on the message of the Gospel and the call to holy living. Action on behalf of Christ's kingdom, 4 whether it be for social justice in Appalachia or for a march in support of the sanctuary movement, is the preeminent value-as demonstrated by the college catalog-of any Life-dominant institution. Active commitment to service is taken as a sign of the student's commitment to the Gospel, but the integral linkage of the two is not often made explicit. It is important to point out that most colleges in both these categories could probably be identified as evangelical (at least theoretically), yet colleges in both categories often fail to address the linkage of Christianity and values consistently across the curriculum and have had very little to say regarding the impact of Christianity upon the creation and maintenance of a coherent and holistic worldview. Too often Message-dominant institutions view their proclamation of the Gospel from the programs created within the campus community as making the education students receive "Christian." (After opening the class with prayer, however, the professor may do little to relate the course content to belief and/or values.) Conversely, Life-dominant colleges can tend to place such emphasis on action and the individual's choice to act that the Gospel's rationale for such action may not be the subject of discussion in many classes. Professors in Life-dominant schools are extremely adept at basing their teaching on moral imperatives for just and compassionate action (hence the "Christian" nature of the education). But out of a concern for offending 5 non-Christians or because of their own reluctance to speak of faith issues, the value orientation of their teaching tends to hang out there by itself without much if any grounding in a Christian worldview framework. Had I authored this essay a decade ago I would have eloquently pleaded with faculty and administrators in the Message-dominant camp to read Matthew and James with somewhat more care and those in the Life-dominant category to do likewise with the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Romans. However, today my prescription for a truly Christian higher education demands even more from its teachers and administrators if it is to achieve its promise of becoming humanity's "best and only hope to win the race against catastrophe."3 It is of the utmost importance that Message-dominant colleges no longer rely primarily on the programs they have created on campus to communicate the Christian kerygma to the student body. A campus which requires chapel attendance and where professors pray before class can still fail miserably at helping students think Christianly in all areas of life and across the curriculum. To develop ways to help students in their struggles to understand the implications of a truly Christian worldview upon each discipline and in all areas of life must lie at the heart of Christian higher education. Life-dominant schools must stop taking for granted that students comprehend the linkage between the secondary call 6 to moral/ethical social action and a personal faith commitment. We are all guilty of compartmentalized thinking (and faith). The Life-dominant Christian college must challenge the tendency to fracture the human experience by clearly providing opportunities to explore biblical foundations for faith and action across the curriculum. As professors, whether in a Message- or Life-dominant school, we should commit ourselves to sharpening our pedagogical skills to include these issues in our courses when legitimate and appropriate. II Ah! But the grand question remains how do we do it? Before we all get too frustrated by yet another one of "those" articles and this journal joins its compatriots in the pile labeled "For Deeper Reflection When Time Allows," let me be encouraging. I believe that at one level or another there are attempts at educational wholeness going on all across the Christian college network. What I would encourage us to do is to go further, to build on the solid base we already have, to be even more intentional, more sophisticated and more creative in linking beliefs and values to our respective academic disciplines. Once we clearly understand the levels at which integration occurs, we can build into our courses appropriate discussions, projects, lectures or readings that truly stimulate our students to take their beliefs with them into all of life's challenges.4 7 Educational wholeness as I have come to understand it can happen at four different levels. Each level builds on successful utilization of the preceding levels-and in fact presupposes the professor's appropriate manipulation of data and methods at those levels. The levels of integration are mutually coherent not mutually exclusive as demonstrated by the diagram (see below). Many professors probably shift back and forth between different levels without consciously realizing it. At each level there is a greater intensity of faith-discipline integration generally correlated with Bloom's Taxonomy of Higher Levels of Learning which implies increasing degrees of confrontation with interpretive and value questions because (teaching strategies) are made progressively more explicit to these issues. It is also important to note that integration at the first three levels is perfectly applicable either to the secular or Christian learning environment. Level 1-Role Model Integration I refer to the first level as Role Model Integration. In my own experience, this level was most apparent when I began teaching as a graduate student at the university. Intimidated simultaneously by the students, my own inadequacies and ignorance regarding my university's interpretation of the separation between church and state, I said nothing about my faith and did not provide assignments or discussions to challenge or initiate a religious or philosophical response among the students or between 8 students and myself. I, and others who integrate at this level, do not seek to point to or to raise questions about ultimate issues of human life and purpose beyond perhaps a rhetorical question or two, but seek to transmit solid knowledge within the discipline to the next generation of citizens and to pursue respectable scholarship in the field. By modeling good teaching and rigorous scientific research, professors in this category hope to reflect their commitment to Christ. By being respected members of the academy, they hope to bring honor to Christ. The only time issues related to faith are brought up is when students approach the professor which, surprisingly, happened occasionally in my case. Even then there may be some reluctance to share too specifically with the searching student. Level 2-Multi-Dimensional Integration Almost concurrent with my discovery of level one came my introduction to the second level-what I have chosen to call Multi-Dimensional Integration. This second level of integration occurs when the professor validates the possibility of multiple views of reality. The Christian scholar understands that humans operate according to many different imperatives at the same time. We are not solely noble nor rational creatures. But neither are we the opposite because the Creation, though fallen, retains the imprint of the Creator. Professors integrating at this level might challenge materialistic or deterministic answers to aesthetic, scientific and humanistic questions of knowing 9 and being by questioning through lectures or discussions the underlying assumptions of various perspectives. Christianity provides the scholar at this level with a theoretical framework for interpreting knowledge and life just as absolute empiricists, minimalists, Marxists, behaviorists, or deconstructionists find their theoretical interpretative ground in their own set of presuppositions. These professors utilize historic Christian doctrine to interpret knowledge and life, but few will explicitly announce to their students their theoretical assumptions. Level 3-Values Integration Values Integration comprises the third level of educational wholeness. Here we find the professor exploring deep value assumptions of an ethical, moral or philosophical/spiritual nature in the classroom. Lively discussions oriented to values decisions can make integration at this level much more stimulating to the students than the essentially straightforward presentation of material in lecture form as is often the case at the second level of integration. Professors could guide these discussions such that issues of faith might ultimately arise, but might hesitate to share in class just why these values have value for fear of approaching indoctrination or overstepping appropriate boundaries. Values-based teaching can demonstrate the relativity of values if they are only based on social consensus. As such it can also crack the door open to discussions regarding the authority or ground 10 for values which could lead directly to faith-related exchanges. These types of issues lend themselves handily to even larger questions related to the personal worldviews of students and their implications for an assortment of values and behaviors. I have discovered that it is at this level of integration where students become actively involved. Lecture material can and should emphasize values but such information should be introduced in such a way so as to elicit student responses so that they might make that linkage with their own thinking on these issues. The focus on values seems to be most simply achieved by the use of supplementary readings. Class discussions based on these readings often allow students to confront the bases for their own attitudes toward such topics as world religions, environmentalism, minimalism in the arts, the impact of technology on cultural norms, deconstructionism, the pursuit of leisure and sexism. Small group worksheets centered on value-based, open-ended questions give rise to lively debate in class. Sometimes splitting the class into opposing camps to debate critical issues works well as a way to review key readings and to enter the domain of value-centered teaching- as long as the professor can serve as an effective moderator. At this level of integration some discussion of the mechanics of a worldview would also be appropriate. The sophistication of the discussion must fit the analytic 11 capacities of the students, but even lower division students can be challenged with basic questions-the answers to which will be the domain of worldview thinking.5 All these opportunities can allow students to comprehend more coherently their own assumptions about the value decisions they make and the beliefs which motivate them as well as to discern more readily the worldviews of others. Level 4-Synthetic Integration The fourth and most satisfying level of integration links values directly and explicitly to the examination of an orthodox Christian worldview. This is the level at which we at Christian institutions should excel. At this Synthetic Integration level value assumptions are directly addressed in relation to historic Christian worldview issues. Since this final integrative step relies heavily on a strong values orientation, many of the techniques noted above will be of great help to those seeking to demonstrate that historic Christianity grounds most consistently the values to which humans subscribe. Professors may use this level to challenge students to compare contemporary theoretical views in the natural sciences, arts, humanities, or social sciences with a biblical view of these same fields by helping students grapple with the implications of a Christian worldview which addresses aesthetics, critical literary theory, the most recent thinking in theoretical physics or the concepts of work and play. To do this professors might provide what they conceive to be 12 fundamental components of a Christian worldview so that students can contemplate worldview questions in this context.6 Course content will be influenced by the desire of the professor to link faith issues directly to the discipline. Questions proceeding from the operating assumptions of the discipline are fertile fields of inquiry. Supplementary readings for class and small group discussion can be more direct in addressing issues from a Christian worldview. These readings can range from distinctly Christian analyses of issues to works which explore the enduring questions of science, human creativity, and life. Course assignments also could reflect a greater emphasis on analyzing issues from a Christian perspective. The personal reaction component will be especially instructive here, but the professor must be very careful not to judge a student's personal beliefs. If this can not be done in good conscience, then this type of assignment might be avoided. Another project which would be appropriate for senior students in a capstone course would be to have them compose their philosophy of the discipline. In the guidelines to introduce such an assignment the professor must again be careful not to prejudge the outcomes, but merely to make sure the student understands that such an assignment can not be done in a vacuum. The student's philosophy of the discipline must proceed from personal answers to worldview questions even if the connections are not immediately 13 obvious to the student.7 It is at the Synthetic Integration level where the concrete articulations of a Christian worldview, done appropriately, can not only demonstrate to students the real basis of their value assumptions-whether they are Christians or not, but it can help Christian students recognize where their worldview is at odds with their profession of faith. True Synthetic Integration, in theory and in practice, will also help heal the breach in the minds of the Christian professorate between faith and professional learning and will ultimately lead to the reinterpretation of Christian "intellectual" life. III I hope that all of us can see ourselves somewhere in the process of linking beliefs, values, and our academic disciplines through the above paradigm. But my challenge to us is to go further, to plumb the depths of our disciplines, to help our students mature in their understanding of who they are and why they believe what they believe. I also realize there are many who may object to the gauntlet I have thrown down to us as Christian educators and I would like to meet and answer some of the major objections if I might. Some Christian professors might contend that such a direct linkage of beliefs, values and academics would detract from the supposed detached "objectivity" of the course. It is my firm conviction that this objection is rooted in the schizophrenic nature of our own graduate 14 educational experience. Aside from those among us who are creative artists whose graduate experience was replete with its own set of standards, most of us were continuously reminded of the goal of objectivity in our work. The scientific method has infiltrated nearly all of academia with requisite authority given to the detached empirical tradition as the only pathway to truth. We all know, however, that those who profess objectivity are often the least objective teachers and scholars. I think all I need do is mention Carl Sagan as an example. In his introduction to Stephen W. Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Sagan exhibits more subjective faith than objective response to data when he notes that Hawking's study leaves "nothing for a Creator to do."8 The methods we use may be value neutral, but the content and presuppositions underlying the use and application of those methods are anything but objective. The most dangerous scholars are not those who examine values and encourage exploration of them with sensitivity and compassion for the diversity of those in the class, but those who use the concept of objectivity to propound their own philosophical or religious ideals surreptitiously- sneaking them in as it were under the guise of disinterested scholarly pursuits. We must overcome our misdirected preoccupation with objectivity, recognize the limitations of our pursuit of it, and accept the real place of faith and values issues in our classrooms. Another common concern heard most often at 15 Life-dominant schools is the fear of offending those with other faith preferences if anything is done with true faith-discipline integration in the classroom. I find this argument troubling for a number of reasons. First, it assumes that raising issues of faith in the classroom equals proselytizing which clearly is not what I am advocating. I am merely arguing that we must allow for discussion of faith issues. A second observation that I would make is that I have never heard anyone at a Life-dominant school hold the same scruples about challenging a student's politics, social or ethnic awareness, or personal study habits. After all, don't we really believe that students learn best when they are confronted with a belief or value different from their own? It is confrontation in a supportive environment that maximizes learning. I would argue that Christians and non-Christians alike will learn more about why they believe what they believe if we do not shirk these most important issues for fear of offending and sally forth in sensitivity and compassion allowing our classrooms to be what they should be-for examining the tough questions of living in this place, at this time. Often we are so busy protecting the few who we imagine might be offended if we address directly issues of faith that we fail to challenge those Christian students and searchers who are struggling to see the big picture. At the most basic level we must see this objection for what it is-an acceptance of the preeminent value of tolerance at all costs 16 in our culture. We are saturated by a culture which seeks to convince us that to even raise belief issues or value issues related to beliefs is offensive to those who do not hold those same values and beliefs. If we really believe this we are in effect saying that anything of value is inappropriate in the classroom because someone may not agree. (I ask you, when did any professor you know discontinue speaking about a political, social or creative issue or theory because it might be offensive to some in the classroom?) Tolerance at this extreme is one of the great heresies of our time and even the greatest advocates of such tolerance show their intolerance of those who disagree with the value of tolerance. I do believe there are two more personal and therefore, in my mind, more difficult problems to address. Some Christian professors are reticent to link beliefs, values and academics because they come out of a faith tradition or family background in which deeply held religious convictions and their implications for life and thought, no matter what the context, have been deemed inappropriate to express before others. This indeed is a difficult issue and one on which I would hope we could work together. Without calling into question the very real convictions of our colleagues who feel this way, I would like to ask two important questions. What is it after all that draws us to a Christian college teaching career? If the answer has to do with issues of "safety" or "comfort" I wonder if the 17 Christian nature of Christian college teaching is more for our nurture and education than it is for the nurture and education of our students. While none would discount the desire for a pleasant work environment, if this is our basic rationale for existing in the Christian college network, then I would suggest that we have reversed the role of professor and student and might be doing a grave injustice to the cause of Christian higher education. A second question cuts to the heart of faith itself: What is it about Christianity that is unique and equips us for life in this world? If we as professors have some answers to this question which have been central to our lives (and it seem logical that we would because of our affiliation with Christianity and with Christian higher education), then I believe that we do a disservice to our students not to raise the issue for their consideration when appropriate in (and out) of the classroom-but not to answer the questions for them. We need to risk being vulnerable to each other-and this is a deep risk. To encourage mutual vulnerability, Christian institutions might encourage departmental retreats or implement supportive interdisciplinary colloquia or college-wide administration/faculty workshops where integration issues could be explored from a variety of perspectives and led by senior administrative and faculty colleagues. At Whitworth, our administration sets aside a specific session at the new faculty orientation each 18 September for mutual discussion of integration issues across the curriculum. In this way, our entering professors are freed to think and teach integratively from the beginning of their tenure. Another legitimate concern surfaces when attempting to address faith-values issues in the classroom. For not only does such an enterprise go against all our graduate education, it also threatens us because we are not trained to know how to do it. Kenneth Gangel perhaps makes it worse when he argues that each professor should be an amateur theologian or should not be allowed to teach in a Christian college.9 It will be hard work, but there are those who are trying to make it easier for us to learn how to be good integrators.10 I have tried to note some of the most important works in the bibliography at the end of this article. This is not an easy or quick process. It will take some hits and misses, but I am convinced that if we are going to fulfill the mission of the Christian college, we must struggle for educational wholeness in our efforts in the classroom. We should not institute campus-wide policies as to how this should happen. The "look" of true integration will vary from discipline to discipline and from professor to professor, but to be about the business of linking beliefs, values and academics is to move toward the goal of equipping the next generation of saints for a life of significance in this world. We have all seen the polls which tell us that Christian 19 young people do not appear to be very different from non-Christian young people in most of their social, moral, and ethical decision making. There are also those who believe that since such a small percentage of college-age young people choose to attend a Christian college, the institutions have only a marginal effect on American society and culture. But I am convinced that if administrators and faculty at Christian colleges prioritize the need to emphasize values based on a thorough integration of orthodox Christian worldview faith issues and academics across the curriculum, not only will we see Christian young people (and adults) able to make distinctly Christian decisions more consistently, but we will also begin to recognize the significant impact a truly Christian higher education can make on American culture. References 1Robert H. Mounce, "An Agenda for the 80's," Inaugural Convocation Address, Whitworth College, April 23, 1981, typescript copy, p. 9. 2Arthur J. De Jong, Reclaiming A Mission: New Directions for the Church-Related College (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990). See for example, Kenneth O. Gangel, "Integrating Faith and Learning: Principles and Process," Bibliotheca Sacra 135, No. 538 (April-June 1978): 99-108; Nicholas Wolterstorff, "The Mission of the Christian College at the End of the 20th Century," The Reformed Journal 33 (June 1983): 14-18; Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987); Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990) and Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward NeoPaganism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988). See also the articles and responses in Faculty Dialogue 11 (Spring 1989). 3Mounce, "An Agenda for the 80's," p. 9. 20 4The following discussion of the four levels of integration as I understand them is rather freely adapted from an elaboration of the same issues with specific regard to my own discipline of history. See Arlin C. Migliazzo, "Teaching History as an Act of Faith," Fides et Historia 23 (Winter/Spring 1991): 10-18. 5I have attempted to keep the number of questions to a minimum so that students are not overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding their own worldview and yet, in discovering their answers to the questions, they will have successfully ventured into epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology-the core areas of worldview thinking. The two questions I now use are: 1) What do I believe to be true and real and how do I know it? and 2) How do I act and expect others to act based upon what I know to be true and real? 6I have adopted an eight-point orthodox Christian worldview statement for my students. Others might add a few more points depending on their particular perspectives. 1) God created all things and created them good, 2) God's Creation has a purpose (i.e., there is a reason for Creation to exist), 3) Humans are a special part of God's Creation and are distinct from other created beings since humans have rational, emotional, physical and spiritual capacities, 4) God is holy and loving and cares deeply for the Creation, 5) God's holiness and love mean that He is both just and compassionate toward the Creation, 6) Human sinfulness has corrupted God's Creation, but it still has intrinsic worth, 7) God intervened in human history through His Son Jesus Christ whose death and resurrection healed the breech between sinful humans and holy God satisfying God's demand for justice and giving evidence of His love, 8) The Old and New Testaments are God's spoken words to humans and contain what we need to know to be restored to a right relationship to God, other humans and to the rest of God's Creation. I am especially indebted to Arthur F. Holmes' Contours of a World View (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983) for my formulation of these issues and others I address when speaking of a Christian worldview. 7The most sophisticated project I assign at the Synthetic Integration level is a paper that each of my prospective history teachers must complete. This philosophy of social studies education paper comes after we have investigated thoroughly the impact a worldview has on beliefs and activities. In the guidelines provided, I emphasize the intensely personal nature of the project and the importance of maintaining a conscious linkage between the philosophy of life (worldview) and the philosophy of social studies education. My assessment proceeds not from the ideas presented but from the congruency of the worldview articulated to the teaching philosophy articulated. Students are peer advisors for each other during the entire process to help with these issues. They also are given strict guidelines as to their role as advisors. 21 8Carl Sagan, "Introduction," in Stephen W. Harking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. x. 9Gangel, "Integrating Faith and Learning," pp. 106-7. 10For example, see Ward Gasque, "Must Ordinary People Know Theology?" Christianity Today 29 (February 1, 1985): 32-4 and Harold Heie, "Bursting Educational Wineskins," Faculty Dialogue 11 (Spring 1989): 127-9. Integrative Studies: A Selected Bibliography General Christian Worldview Studies Allen, Diogenes. Christian Belief in a Post Modern World. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1989. Beck, W. David, ed. Opening the American Mind: The Integration of Biblical Truth in the Curriculum of the University. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991. Blamires, Harry. Recovering the Christian Mind: Meeting the Challenge of Secularism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Campolo, Anthony. A Reasonable Faith: Responding to Secularism. Irving, TX: Word Books, 1983. De Jong, Arthur J. Reclaiming A Mission: New Direction for the Church-Related College. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Gill, Jerry. The Opening of the Christian Mind: Taking Every Thought Captive to Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Guinness, Os. The Gravedigger File. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983. Heie, Harold and Wolfe, David L., eds. The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies for Faith-Discipline Integration. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Helm, Paul, et al., eds. Objective Knowledge: A Christian Perspective. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991. Henry, Carl F. H. Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990. ________. Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Holmes, Arthur F. All Truth is God's Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977. ________. Contours of a World View. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. ________. Shaping Character: Moral Education in the Christian College. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. ________. The Idea of a Christian College, revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Holmes, Arthur F., ed. The Making of a Christian Mind: A 22 Christian World View and the Academic Enterprise. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985. Moore, Peter C. Disarming the Secular Gods: How to Talk So Skeptics Will Listen. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Nash, Ronald H. Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990. Plantinga, Alvin and Wolterstorff, Nicholas, eds. Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984. Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989. ________. Discipleship of the Mind: Learning to Love God in the Ways We Think. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990. Smith, Gary Scott and Hoffecker, W. Andrew. Building a Christian World View, 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (Vol. 1: God, Man and Knowledge, 1986; Vol. 2: The Universe, Society and Ethics, 1988). Smith, Robert W., ed. Christ and the Modern Mind. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972. Tinker, Melvin and MacKay, Donald W., eds. The Open Mind and Other Essays: A Scientist in God's World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991. Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. Loving God with All Your Mind: How to Survive and Prosper as a Christian in the Secular University and Post-Christian Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1987. Walsh, Brian J. and Middleton, J. Richard. The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984. Worldview Studies: The Arts Anker, Roy M. et al., eds. Dancing in the Dark: Youth, Popular Culture, and the Electronic Media. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Billingsley, K. L. The Seductive Image: A Christian Critique of the World of Film. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1989. Myers, Kenneth A. All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1989. Ryken, Leland. Culture in Christian Perspective: A Door to Understanding and Enjoying the Arts. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1986. Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming. ________. Christianity and the Arts. Grand Rapids, MI: 23 Eerdmans, forthcoming. Worldview Studies: Education Knight, George R. Philosophy and Education: An Introduction in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1989. May, Philip R. Confidence in the Classroom: Realistic Encouragement for Teachers. InterVarsity Press, 1988. Peterson, Michael L. Philosophy of Education: Issues and Options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986. Wilson, Douglas. Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning: An Approach to Distinctively Christian Education. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991. Worldview Studies: The Humanities Bebbington, David. Patterns in History: A Christian Perspective on Historical Thought, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990. Carman, John B. Christianity and Eastern Religions. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Evans, C. Stephen. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985. Frykenberg, Robert Eric. Christianity and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Gallagher, Susan V. and Lundin, Roger. Literature Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. Hasker, William. Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983. Holmes, Arthur F. Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984. Jeffrey, David. Christianity and Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming. McIntire, C. T. and Wells, Ronald A., eds. History and Historical Understanding. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Nash, Ronald H. Christian Faith and Historical Understanding. Dallas, TX: Probe Books, 1984. Plantinga, Alvin. Christianity and Contemporary God Concepts. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Timmerman, John H. and Hettinga, Donald R. In the World: Reading and Writing As a Christian. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, n.d. Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. Reading Between the Lines: A Christian Approach to Literature. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990. Wells, Ronald H. History Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. Wolfe, David L. Epistemology: The Justification of Belief. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Reason Within the Bounds of Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Yandell, Keith E. Christianity and Philosophy. Grand 24 Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Worldview Studies: The Natural Sciences Anderson, V. Elving. Christianity and Natural Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming Beismer, E. Calvin. Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. ________. Prosperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Elsdon, Ronald. Bent World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981. Hawthorne, Tim. Windows on Science and Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991. Hummel, Charles E. The Galileo Connection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986. Moreland, J. P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989. Ratzsch, Del. Philosophy of Science: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986. Russell, Colin A. Cross-Currents: Interactions Between Science and Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991. Thurman, L. Duane. How to Think About Evolution, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978. Van Till, Howard J., et al. Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World's Formation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Van Till, Howard J. Science Held Hostage. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. ________. The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About the Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Wright, Richard T. Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. Youngblood, Ronald F., ed. The Genesis Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991. Worldview Studies: The Social Sciences Balswick, Jack O. and Morland, J. Kenneth. Social Problems: A Christian Understanding and Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990. Bandow, Doug. Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Bauckham, Richard. The Bible in Politics. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990. Chewning, Richard, et al. Business Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1990. 25 Campolo, Anthony. Sociology Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1992. Curry, Dean C. A World Without Tyranny: Christian Faith and International Politics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990. Eidsmoe, John. God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action. Wheaton. IL: Crossway Books, 1984. Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Bluff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans , 1990. Evans, C. Stephen. Wisdom and Humanness in Psychology: Prospects for a Christian Approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989. Farnsworth, Kirk E. Wholehearted Integration: Harmonizing Psychology and Christianity Through Word and Deed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986. Griffiths, Brian. Christianity and Economics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Hay, Donald A. Economics Today: A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Jeeves, Malcolm A., ed. Behavioural Sciences. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d. Jones, Stanton L. Psychology and the Christian Faith: An Introductory Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986. Klay, Robin K. Counting the Cost: The Economics of Christian Stewardship. Ann Arbor, MI: Books on Demand, (UMI), n.d. Lyon, David. Sociology and the Human Image. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983. Malony, H. Newton, ed. Psychology of Religion: Personalities, Problems, Possibilities. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990. Marshall, Paul, et al., eds. Stained Glass: World Views and the Social Sciences. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989. Marshall, Paul and Vandervenne, Robert E., eds. Social Science in Christian Perspective. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988. Meier, Paul D. et al. Introduction to Psychology and Counseling: Christian Perspectives and Applications. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982. Myers, David G. and Jeeves, Malcolm A. Psychology Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Nash, Ronald H. Poverty and Wealth: The Christian Debate Over Capitalism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1986. Olasky, Marvin, et al. Freedom, Justice and Hope: Toward a Strategy for the Poor and Oppressed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Owensby, Walter L. Economics for Prophets: A Primer on Concepts, Realities, and Values in Our Economic System. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Perkins, Richard. Looking Both Ways: Exploring the Interface Between Christianity and Sociology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. 26 Skillen, James W. The Scattered Voice: Christians at Odds in the Public Square. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990. Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. The Person in Psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. White, John. Putting the Soul Back in Psychology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987. Wolterstroff, Nicholas. Until Justice and Peace Embrace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. 27