Teaching Philosophy In A Bible College:

                 Retraining the evangelical mind

                                

                       by Bruce A. Little

                     Piedmont Bible College



     More often than not, Christians today are drawn more to

those who amuse them than those who make them think. The content

of much of the current preaching in evangelical churches all too

often reflects this embarrassing reality.  Within

Evangelicalism1, often entertainment takes precedence over theological

instruction to the extent that the preacher who devotes his time

to stories and theatrics receives the greatest audience response

and the highest approval ratings. While the already convinced

amuse themselves with religious notions and self-help programs,

the culture at large goes untouched by Truth.  Unfortunately,

Sunday morning messages that reflect theological content and

sound argument enjoy only limited acceptance.  Sermonically,

reasoned argument and critical theological thinking are neither

practiced nor encouraged, a fact all too often mirrored in the

religious attitudes of Christian young people attending Bible

college.  Very often these students voice an uneasiness and even

a holy objection to either rigorous intellectual inquiry or

applying philosophical categories when doing theology, especially

within a ministry context. They echo the predominant notion that

theology belongs exclusively to the realm of faith and that

approaching the Bible intellectually somehow destroys faith and

exalts reason over Revelation.

     The purpose here is to consider the genealogy of anti-

intellectualism in the Evangelical community, to acknowledge the

consequences for both Evangelicalism and culture, and then

suggest how a course in philosophy might help reverse the trend.

Here, the term "philosophy" refers to the discipline (in

contradistinction to a particular system of belief) which

involves the following notions:  Philosophy deals with problems

and/or issues concerning meaning, truth, and the interrelatedness

between ideas.2  It is the critical inquiry into the nature of

the world in which we live in an attempt to give meaning to the

basic questions of life.  This involves finding justification for

beliefs as well as an adequate test for truth whereby there is a

mechanism to adjudicate between two opposing truth-claims.

     Historically, Christians reacted strongly to the anti-

supernatural, rationalistic sentiments of the Enlightenment.

Arguably, the Enlightenment did collide with traditional

Christian epistemology.  Henry May suggests, ". . . that the

Enlightenment consists of all those who believe two propositions:

first, that the present age is more enlightened than the past;

and second, that we understand nature and man best through the

use of our natural faculties."3  So Christians who remained true

to orthodox Christianity were right in denying the two basic

propositions of the Enlightenment, but they were wrong in their

corollary position, namely that reason was the mother of

theological infidelity.  The problem, however, lay not in reason

itself, but rather in how men employed reason by exalting it over

Revelation.  The Enlightenment assumptions were as much an

attitude about Revelation as they were about reason, a fact made

clear by May's summary: "Men of the Enlightenment agreed that

divine revelation could not establish truths which were contrary

to reason."4  The rift between faith and reason experienced

further exacerbation with the rise of evolutionism in the late

1800s in the name of science.  As Paul Carter notes, "Scientific

investigation as an enemy of religion was a common theme in the

Gilded Age."5  Predicated upon the Evangelical assumption that

reason sought to destroy the Faith, many turned to a religion of

the heart where faith (in contradistinction to reason) and

emotion determined the reality of Christian truth.  Addressing

this development, Turner writes, "[M]any ministers by 1850

preached as if emotion itself verified God."6 In fact, he

suggests that ". . . to more and more people, belief in God

seemed to express feeling rather than to state knowledge."7

Unfortunately, this non-critical, anti-intellectual response to

the Enlightenment position and its subsequent scientific claims,

eventually lead to an hostile relationship between faith and

reason.

     The exclusive reapportionment of faith to religion and

reason to science resulted in definitions of faith and reason so

as necessarily to place them in an adversarial relationship

epistemologically.  Faith alone could please God (Hebrews 11:6)

and now whereas faith stood against reason, faith received

epistemological autonomy all in the interest of pleasing God.

This legitimatized a faith in faith system which placed religious

claims beyond the judgement of reason.  In this case, however,

epistemologically faith reaches beyond reason and confesses

knowledge that stands above any objective truth-testing criteria.

Unfortunately, this permitted  "faith-knowledge" freedom to make

any claim it chose and placed itself beyond criticism.

Consequently, in a very self-serving fashion, any objection to a

"faith- knowledge" claim could be judged as a product of reason

and therefore an attack on faith which automatically disqualified

the objection.  By the third decade of the twentieth century all

of this promoted a growing anti-intellectual haze around much of

Evangelicalism mitigating the distinctiveness of the very Truth

it had been commissioned to proclaim.

     Culturally, and almost paradoxically, the theologically anti-

intellectual approach to Christianity of the late nineteenth

century continued to be fuelled by pragmatic concerns.

Increasingly, twentieth century western culture exhibited a re-

orientation to feeling over thinking, intuition over reason,

subjectivity over objectivity, image over content and

entertainment over intellectual stimulation.  Neil Postman

commenting on this shift laments the passing of what he calls the

Age of Exposition:

     Exposition is a mode of thought, a method of learning, and

means of expression.     Almost all of the characteristics we

associate with  mature discourse were amplified by

typography, which has the strongest possible bias toward

exposition; a sophisticate    ability to think conceptually,

deductively, and sequentially; a high valuation of reason   and

order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for

detachment and      objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed

response.  Toward the end of the nineteenth  century, for reasons

I am most anxious to explain, the Age of Exposition began to

pass, and the early sign of its replacement could be discerned.

Its replacement was to   be the Age of Show Business.8

This unfortunate shift within western culture only encouraged and

in a pragmatic sense legitimatized the earlier anti-intellectual,

emotional mindset of the Evangelical.  Evangelicals, driven by a

most commendable desire to reach people with the Christian

message, unfortunately ignored their intellectual heritage (in

such men as Jonathan Edwards) and acquiesced to the mindless

appetite of culture.  This Evangelical pandering to the

entertainment-crazed culture in a way legitimized the anti-

intellectualism by giving it an acceptable expression in terms of

cultural demands.  One must understand that in this case, culture

did not change the Evangelical, it simply provided an opportunity

for the Evangelical to appear modern.

     Defining faith and reason in mutually exclusive terms as if

there were two totally different spheres of knowledge---one (the

religious one) known by faith only and the other (all other

knowledge) known by reason  had titanic consequences for

Evangelicalism.  The logical extension of this position  bred a

conservative religious existentialism  that seriously attack

intellectual vigor in the work of theology.  The intellectual

laxness bankrupted the Evangelical's theological assets and

devalued its theological currency and all in the name of saving

Christianity from modernity. The irony is more tragic than

profound.  The tragedy continues to play out in both how

Evangelicalism understands itself and its ministry to the world.

     The consequences of these developments within Evangelicalism

has shaped both how it has understood itself as well as how

Evangelicalism would minister to the culture at large. While

world events and philosophical movements creates a difficult

environment within which Christianity ministers, the Evangelical

community must bear responsibility for its inappropriate response

to the cultural challenges of the last one hundred and fifty

years. Much of what Evangelicalism faces today in terms of

decreasing returns on its evangelistic efforts and its increasing

theological slippage is the unfortunate epistemological fallout

from making faith the sole proprietor/guardian of Christian

Truth.  Ultimately, it blinded Evangelicalism to the importance

of philosophical issues when doing applied theology and

discouraged critical thinking about the world and its questions.

Of course, pragmatically this played well to a culture more

interested in what it felt than what it knew.

     The Evangelical's intellectual laxness, however, had serious

consequences for both itself as the "pillar and ground of the

Truth" and the culture  which so desperately needed the Truth.

Three such consequences will be mentioned here. One, the

trivalization of Truth in the interest of cultural relevance.

Two, culture was shielded from the weightiness of Truth. Three,

the Church failed as "the pillar and ground of Truth."

Oversimplification of both culture's ills and the Bible's

response has prevailed in almost every corner of Evangelicalism.

The response exhibited a "believe it or leave it" mentality.

While Evangelicals continued to speak correct theological words,

they only had meaning for the already convinced.

     The anti-intellectual mentality continues making the

Christian message appear inconsistent at many points. Too often,

theological positions are developed in isolation from the

theological whole.  The relatedness of individual doctrines to

the whole of Christian theology receives little or no attention.

The logical extensions of certain theological responses to

cultural challenges are seldom given any serious consideration.

In the end, Evangelicalism took on the appearance of

inconsistency and superficiality.

     The intellectual retreat which aimed at protecting the

Christian religion from the acid assaults of reason eventually

robbed Christianity of anything objective to say to the culture

beyond some warm feeling. Turner writes, "Belief has slipped into

a convenient new category, which helped not only to explain it

but to explain it away."9   Consequently, it left future

generations of Christians unprepared either to make a case for

Christianity or adequately defend publicly what they believe

about Christianity.  Predictably, the Church began slighting its

responsibility as the "pillar and ground of Truth."  Practically,

this has rendered Christianity harmless to an increasingly

decaying culture that craves entertainment rather than

instruction and information rather than knowledge. Truth is

trivalized in the interest of cultural relevancy and culture is

shielded from the weightiness of Truth.10  In the end, the

difference between Christian truth claims and other religious

claims (like the New Age) has been  vaporized by the abandonment

of intellectual prowess in doing and proclaiming the Christian

message.

     The Christian community, however, must not give in to the

castrating notion of pluralism.  Christianity is different.  It

is exclusive in its truth claims and it does challenge other

religious truth claims.  The risen Savior has commanded that the

message be spoken not only with love and compassion, but equally

with conviction and clarity.  The present approach within many

Christian colleges' curriculum prepares students more in terms of

the "what" to believe rather than the "why" they should believe

it.  Hence there is an unhealthy imbalance in terms of programs

and methods. The fact is, however, when Christians are taught how

to think more than what to think the results are rewarding both

in terms of personal growth and ministerial effectiveness.

     Pedagogically, the epistemological bifurcation of faith and

reason especially effected Evangelicalism's approach to

ministerial training in at least two ways.  One involved the

ministerial fragmentation created by placing heart over head,

while the second created theological dichotomy between the

spiritual and the natural.  Both contributed to the

marginalization of biblical Christianity in the western culture

and the declination of spiritual/theological health of the

Evangelical church.

     The ministerial fragmentation impacts the manner in which

students and teachers alike approach the enterprise of

reconciling an intellectual approach to theology and the

spiritual preparation for Christian ministry. 11  All too often,

rigorous intellectual theological inquiry (the head) receives

little or no attention at all in the "higher" interest of

promoting and safeguarding spiritual fervor in the name of faith

(the heart).  The "pastor's heart" receives the lion's share of

attention at the expense of the "pastor's head" as if theological

knowledge were somehow either incidental or inimical to the

Christian minister.  How strange this sounds when considered in

light of such texts as I Timothy 3: 14,15;4:12-16; II Timothy

2:15;3:15-17;4:1-6 where the Apostle Paul demands that Timothy be

a theologian as well as one who cares for people.  Many

Evangelicals including those within the Bible college environment

elect to prepare the "heart" to the neglect of the "mind."  The

result is that more pastors minister by what they "feel"

spiritually than by what they "know" theologically.  That is not

to say that Bible college curriculum does not require students to

know theological facts, but it is carried out in an institutional

atmosphere where just about everything else including chapel

messages reinforces the priority of the heart all in the name of

spiritual fervor.  This current trajectory will leave both the

church and the world without a commitment to or voice for

objective Truth.  It will assure that in time, Truth spoken with

relevancy as well as orthodoxy will simply disappear from the

discussion and Truth will fall in the streets for want of able

bearers of its weight.  This runs counter to Evangelicalism's own

intellectual heritage as found in the theologians of the

Reformation and transmitted and codified on this side of the

Atlantic by able pastors such as Jonathan Edwards.

     The theological dichotomy between the spiritual and the

natural defines the second area where confusion prevails in the

Bible college.  While it remains quite possible that many Bible

colleges' official position affirms that there is no final

division between the sacred (spiritual) and the secular

(natural), in practice the world to come (the world of spirit) is

everything and this world (the world of the physical) is

secondary at best.  Consequently, many Christian young people,

especially those training to be pastors, view all non theological

courses with a jaundiced eye.  They engage such courses with

either resistance or indifference.  The net result is they

forfeit a good liberal arts education as a framework within which

to understand and to minister the Truth to a post-Christian

culture.  This is a real departure from theological training of

the past where theology stood at the center of all learning, not

totally removed to an altogether different category with no real

relationship to the rest of life.

     In the larger picture, this means the loss of a truly

biblical view of reality.  While the Bible college doctrinal

statement may reflect a very orthodox view of creation, the

logical extension of that theology is seldom embraced in terms of

ontological categories.  This disregard for a theologically

informed ontology moves the Evangelical message in one of two

extremes --- legalism/ material despisers or materialism/

material lovers.  Legalism defines the notion that material

things in and of themselves are evil. Those embracing this notion

tend to be different before the world in terms of what they do

not have materially instead of what they do have spiritually. In

this case, much of culture is shut out from the redeeming grace

of the Christian message.  Materialism finds Christians naively

seduced by the prosperity theology until they become polite

materialists.  This group has little difference before the world

except in the area of religious habit.  At this point, they have

nothing substantial to say to culture. The ontological void in

the case of the former will eventually restrict the Christian

message to places where only the already convinced convene.  In

the case of the latter it will remove the Christian voice from

the public square by virtue of irrelevancy (what difference does

it make?).

     This ontological divorce necessarily led to an

epistemological fragmentation.  It struck right at the heart of

what the Reformers knew to be the epistemological superiority of

Christianity, namely that it offered a unified field of

knowledge.  Christians must emphasize precisely this point to a

post-modern culture which has given up on a unified field of

knowledge only to live with the discomfort of fragmentation.

First, however, Evangelicals must develop a Christian view of

reality and live consistently with that view before the world

will have a reason to listen.  Furthermore, until the Evangelical

mind understands the importance of a biblical ontology, the

theological dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural will

only harden and grow deeper.  Addressing the Evangelicals' fear

of philosophy and offering legitimate assurances for theological

integrity could reverse this trend.

     The following four categories will summarize the critical

concerns in the debate over the place and benefit of philosophy

within the Evangelical context: (1) the relationship between

Christianity and philosophy, (2) the legitimacy of a course in

philosophy in a Bible College based on theological commitments,

(3) the benefit of teaching a philosophy course to Christian

students.  (4) what should define a philosophy course in a Bible

college curriculum. Christian educators must have a well thought

out position and objective that is consistent with both the

purpose and spirit of the Bible college.  While many Bible

colleges have philosophy in the curriculum, the question is how

seriously is it taken by administration, faculty and students

alike.  In order to promote the possibility of maximizing what is

already in place, a closer look at the issues will help in making

some of the important primary decisions relative to this

proposal.

I. The relationship between Christianity and philosophy

     Admittedly, throughout Church history there has been an

uneasy tension and at times overt hostility between philosophy

and Christianity (present generation no exception). Believing

philosophy to be an anathema to theology, many within

Christianity appeal to such Scripture as Colossians 2:8 as

scriptural justification for their disavowal of philosophy.  An

exegetical investigation of the text reveals however, that only

"worldly" philosophies are to be avoided, not philosophy as a

discipline.  Others have raised objections based on a misreading

of I Corinthians 2  where the Apostle Paul speaks against the

wisdom of the world.  This argument suggests that Paul confessed

that his philosophical approach at Athens on Mars Hill resulted

in failure (Acts 17).  So, when he arrived in Corinth he changed

his ways and discarded the use of rational arguments.

Consequently, when he later wrote to the Corinthians he reported

that he came knowing only Christ and Him crucified.  Furthermore,

he had very harsh words for the wisdom of this world. The

conclusion drawn being that Paul made a mistake on Mars Hill in

mixing theology with philosophy.  Result, when he went to Corinth

he assumed a totally different position (anti-reason position)

thus establishing an evangelistic model for all of Christianity.

All of this sounds convincing until the rest of the facts of the

case are reviewed.  Acts 18:4  claims that at Corinth he

"reasoned" every week in the synagogue.  This is hardly support

for the opinion that Paul decided not to use rational argument at

Corinth.

     Furthermore, cognitive words such as "reason," "persuaded,"

"refute," and "confute" are words employed by New Testament

writers to describe the ministries of the early apostles and to

define the ongoing work of church leaders as well.  The

Scriptural evidence supports the notion that presenting the truth

claims of Christianity may very well involve the use of rational

argument in making a case for Christianity. This claim finds

further support in the employment of the Greek word "APOLOGIA."

Luke, in recording the ministry of the Apostle Paul, uses the

word eight times.  In Acts 19:33; 22:1, it is translated defense.

Luke uses the word in Acts 24:10; 25:8,16; 26:1,2 where the

translation reads "answer(ed)."  In II Timothy 4:16, Paul speaks

about his answer (APOLOGIA) for the accusations laid against him

by the Jews.

     Paul, himself, employs the term "APOLOGIA" to define his

evangelistic endeavors (Phil. 1:7).  Peter commands every

believer to be "ready to give an answer (APOLOGIA) to every man

that asks you of the hope that is in you" (I Pet. 3:15).  Peter's

point strikes at the heart of the discussion about rational

argument as he exhorts all Christians to be prepared to give

convincing arguments that will demonstrate the validity of their

faith.  Both the secular and biblical usage of "APOLOGIA" reveals

the primary meaning as that of presenting a reasoned argument to

answer an accusation or objection against a belief or claim.

     Unfortunately, this notion seldom receives an honest hearing

from many in Evangelicalism.   Therefore, it comes as no surprise

that many Bible College students react negatively to an

introductory course in Philosophy. The prevailing notion places

philosophy in conflict with biblical Christianity.  The

negativism ranges from a reluctant acquiescence to a vocal

resistance as they question the relationship between philosophy

(reason, head) and theology (faith, heart).

     Certainly a difference exits between teaching  philosophy as

a discipline and teaching philosophy as a system.  The discussion

here argues for the former.  That is, philosophy as a discipline

involves dealing with the critical thinking tools and organizing

categories of philosophy and not teaching a secular philosophical

system that would be in conflict with orthodox theology.  Whereas

as secular philosophies (the systems of thought) are constructed

on human reason alone as the source for truth, Christianity is

based on Revelation as the source of Truth.  While Christians

would disagree with using reason as the source of Truth, surely

we must not deny the use of reason in the understanding and

defense of Truth.  The point here maintains that theology employs

reason in the process (not as a truth source) of understanding

Truth.  One can understand the relationship between Revelation

and reason in the following way: Revelation makes God (Truth)

known and reason makes God knowable.  Reason (part of being

created in the image of God) enables one to make sense of

revelation (general and special) because all of creation is the

product of the reasonable God.

II. The Benefit of Philosophy

     Philosophy as a discipline emphasizes how to think

critically as well as how to speak with calculated precision.

Although a paucity of critical thinking characterizes much of the

western world, it is totally inexcusable in the Christian

community.  (This is so because the Christian has a word from

God, an objective word, which speaks to this world and all its

complexity).   Student papers often reflect a lack of continuity

of thought and flow of related ideas.  Untaught writing skills

may account for some of this, but in the main, it is a problem of

undeveloped critical thinking skills.  When asked to critique a

particular text, students often struggle to identify the thesis

of the text resulting in a conspicuous inability to understand

the point of the text or to critique the argument presented.

Furthermore, many are unable to articulate their thoughts with

precision or coherence when defending their ideas. Too often

their responses are liberally punctuated with such phrases as

"You know what I mean."  How can Evangelicalism respond to

culture's alternate religious offerings and objections to

Christianity unless individual Christians possess the ability

both to critique the offerings and respond to cultural objections

with well defined arguments.   A course in philosophy would help

equip the student for this task.

     In churches, Christians have been accustomed to others

thinking for them, especially in theological/religious matters.

Unchallenged obedience based on the authority of the pastor

treats  "Why" questions as something tantamount to the

unpardonable sin.  If thinking is not out-rightly discouraged by

intimidation, it is disallowed by guilt.  Legitimate questions

often receive no more than the sanctimonious response, "Just

believe," as if Christianity played by different epistemological

rules from that of other areas of knowledge.  Since many raised

in the Evangelical community have been subjected to this

cognitive manipulation, raising a question regarding theology

approximates the work of an infidel, even though most students'

questions only ask for clarification and not voicing rejection.

     Academically, more often than not, theology courses are

taught more in terms of "What" to believe with very little

emphasis on "Why" one should believe this or that.  Even when

"Why" questions receive attention, it is within a limited

sectarian framework instead of a world view framework.  How are

Christians to defend theologically what they do not understand.

A well developed course in philosophy would help the student

understand that "Why" questions are not a threat to the Christian

message because Christianity is Truth. Furthermore, it would

assist in preparing theological responses from a Christian world

view that could be understood by those thinking from a non-

Christian world view.

     A course in philosophy would also provide students with the

critical tools with which to understand and critique their

culture (art, literature, film, etc.) in terms of ideas and

assumptions.  Evangelical Christians tend to view mediums of

cultural expression in one of two ways.  The first view tends

toward naivete.  Here the criteria is a simple matter of

entertainment. This view ignores any notion of the possibility a

latent message that might be transmitted through the medium.  In

this case, the Evangelical only thinks in terms of personal

entertainment preference and not in terms of assumptions or

ideas.  These people consume the cultural wares rather

indiscriminately and often at a considerable personal high price.

The other approach views cultural expressions only in term of the

obvious.  In this case, moral sensibilities only determine the

criteria for acceptance or rejection (and well it should, but

there is more).  In this case, such unacceptable aspects as dirty

language, disrespect for people, violence and obscenity serve as

the basic criteria for accepting or rejecting cultural servings.

While this view certainly weeds out much that is contrary to the

Christian life and inimical to the individual Christian's life,

it fails in that it allows other subtle but equally damaging anti-

Christian expressions.  Failure to think in terms of ideas and

assumptions permits indiscriminate consumption of that which

carries a basic anti-Christian message.

     The  practical results of a philosophy course would be

students who could determine the overtly anti-Christian

expressions as well as the tacitly anti-Christian cultural

impulses. Students would be taught the importance of ideas and

assumptions as well as the obvious implication of the language

used to express ideas.  Developing critical thinking skills would

help the student see  cultural expressions of all sorts as either

actively or passively shaped by the world view of the

artist/author.  Awareness at this level equips the Christians to

be a more consistent consumer of cultural wares and develops

skills in critical thinking that would enhance both his/her

written as well as verbal discourse.



III. The Theological Importance Of Philosophy

     Doing theology mainly differs from doing philosophy in that

the first deals with revealed truth in a specific text, the

Bible, while the latter traditionally seeks truth by various

means.  Both, however, seek answers to the great questions of

life, both seek truth.  Whereas the mind of man is part of God's

creation (Gen. 1:26; 2:7; Ro. 2:14,15), the ability to think

about life is part of God's natural revelation.  So the questions

of philosophy arise from man's God-given abilities to think

thoughts consistent with what is---reality.  By God's creative

purpose, man's rational faculties function in unison with

external creation (natural revelation) to bring man to the

conclusion there is a God (Ro. 1: 18-20).  Natural revelation

includes man's rational faculty which is consistent with special

revelation for both come from the same source and both seek to

inform man about God.  Thus the basic categories of man's

thoughts (part of being made in the image of God) form an

appropriate grid through which special revelation  can be

understood and applied to life.  In this sense there is no

conflict between philosophy and theology.  Theology offers the

answers raised by philosophy and philosophy  provides categories

for understanding and applying theology.

     Ignoring the basic categories of thought when doing theology

creates unnecessary confusion between theological particulars.

For example, much of the confusion over understanding God's

sovereignty and man's free will could be eliminated by framing

the case differently. For example, stating the case of man's free

will in more appropriate terms of power of choice.  Another case

would be the discussion of God's omnipotence where distinctions

should be made between logically possible and physically possible

tasks.  If one uncritically affirms that God can do anything and

one thing can be found that He cannot do, then His omnipotence is

open to challenge.  The definitional clarity (and precision) and

public defense of other doctrines such as the trinity, creation

and inerrancy would be enhanced by  recognizing

"interrelatedness" and  employing philosophical categories and

laws of logic.  What is at stake here is not just the individual

doctrines of the Bible, but the Christian belief system as a

whole as a legitimate codification of Truth.  To claim possession

of the word from God is a very profound assertion indeed.

     Epistemologically, claiming a word from God is more than a

religious statement.  The Christian doctrine of Scripture holds

the key to all epistemological controversy.  The debate of how

one knows has raged for years. Beginning with particulars alone,

ultimately lands the epistemological search in skepticism at best

and nihilism at worst.  The way out (and I would add, the only

way out) of the epistemological abyss is Revelation from God.  A

God who can speak and who has spoken to humanity from beyond the

horizon gives a starting point apart from the individual person

(a particular).  Such a word serves as an absolute reference

point apart from man.  The implications extend far beyond

religious concerns and touches all worldly discourse, both in

terms of epistemology and ontology.  When Evangelicals understand

this, hopeful they will couch their theological positions in a

larger context (that of a world view) without sacrificing the

pointedness of the particular theological claims.

     Enter philosophy.  Besides providing critical thinking

skills for doing theology (understanding Revelation under the

direction of the Holy Spirit) philosophy encourages relevancy in

proclaiming theology by defining human thought patterns, general

categories of thought and the crucial questions of life.  This

relationship between philosophy and theology exists in that both

the Bible and creation are the work of the same God.  Man thinks

a certain way or in particular categories because of being

created in God's image.  Christians must understand that despite

the Fall, an epistemological correspondence still exits between

revelation (natural and special) and the mind (the source of

philosophy) which is part of natural revelation.  Therefore,

philosophy helps theology construct a framework and demonstrate

relatedness among theological particulars for both doing and

proclaiming theology.  When the Christian speaks Christianity's

truth claims, of necessity larger issues of reality (as

understood by the mind) are addressed as well as the particular

issue of individual salvation.  Ignoring this fact will give the

impression that Christianity only speaks about a piece of

life/reality rather than all of life, that theology informs about

optional matters instead of necessary issues, and that theology

only speaks about religious things, not things of this world

reality.  A course in philosophy would help students understand

the importance of this distinction.

IV. Considerations on what to teach in a philosophy class

     A course in philosophy should include an introduction to

logic, epistemology and metaphysics, and a historical development

of western thought.  The remainder of the course should involve

doing Christian philosophy by addressing ethical/moral and

theological issues from a philosophical perspective within a

Judeo-Christian world view.  This would develop critical thinking

skills and give the student opportunity to use those skills for

developing a theological response to life's crucial issues.

Caution must be exercised to avoid overwhelming the student,

instead of nurturing her in the process of thinking in terms of a

Christian world view in contradistinction to theological "proof-

texting".  Under no circumstances should philosophy be taught in

order merely to win arguments.  The goal must be two-fold: one to

instruct in the art of critical, analytical, and categorical

thinking and two, to teach the student how to defend biblically

and logically the exclusive truth claims of Christianity before a

post-Christian culture driven by pluralism.  Furthermore, the

course must have a clear objective and demonstrable integration

with all other courses.  At all times, philosophy must be

subservient to Revelation, but at the same time, one must not

think of the two as being in competition.

     Reversing the anti-intellectual trend calls for Evangelical

leaders to re-evaluate the role of philosophy relative to the

purpose and objectives of the Bible college and secondarily

determine how a course or courses in philosophy (either present

or planned) would best fit into the overall curriculum.  The

challenge to re-train the Evangelical mind focuses on the

Evangelical tradition modelled by the Puritan mind which

according to Alister McGrath brought together both ". . . the

intellectual rigor of the Reformed tradition, deriving from

Calvin and his followers, and an emphasis on the experiential

aspects of the Christian life which in a number of respects

anticipated Pietism."12 If justification exists for philosophy in

a Bible college then it must be taken seriously as an important

aspect of the educational goal of the Bible college.  The

question remains, "Will Evangelicalism be satisfied to train men

and women to entertain the already convinced?"  Or will it accept

the challenge of re-training the Evangelical mind to provoke the

world to ponder (and hopefully accept) the realities of the truth

claims of Christianity for His glory and His Kingdom.







                          Bibliography



Carter, Paul.  The Spiritual Crisis of the Gilded Age. DeKalb:
Northern Illinois University  Press, 1971.

May, Henry. The Enlightenment in America. London: Oxford
University Press, 1978.

McGrath, Alister. Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity   Press, 1995.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves To Death. New York: Penguin
Books, 1986.

Turner, James. Without God, Without Creed. Baltimore: The John
Hopkins University Press,     1985.

Woodhouse, Mark. A Preface to Philosophy. 4 ed. Belmont, Ca. :
Wadsworth Publishing     Company, 1990.

_______________________________
1    Here the term "Evangelical" refers to  those who hold to the
following  doctrines  as  defined by conservative  protestantism:
The virgin birth, the substitutionary death of Christ, the bodily
resurrection of Christ, the personal, physical second  coming  of
Christ, and the inerrancy of Scripture.
2     Mark  Woodhouse. A Preface to Philosophy. 4  ed.  (Belmont,
Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1990), 3,4.
3     Henry  May.  The Enlightenment In America. (Oxford:  Oxford
University Press, 1976; Oxford Press, 1978), xiv.
4    Ibid, xiv
5     Paul  Carter.  The  Spiritual Crisis  Of  The  Gilded  Age.
(DeKalb, Ill.:Northern Illinois University Press, 1971), 14
6     James  Turner. Without God, Without Creed. (Baltimore:  The
John Hopkins University, 1985). 110
7    Ibid., 198
8    Neil Postman. Amusing Ourselves To Death. (New York: Penguin
Books, 1986), 63.
9    Turner, 198.
10     Recently three books have been published which  deal  with
this  issue  in  greater  detail than either  room  or  expertise
permits  here.  The three are: George Marsden. The  Soul  of  the
American University. New York: Oxford Press, 1994; Mark Noll. The
Scandal   of   the  Evangelical  Mind.  Grand  Rapids:   Eerdmans
Publishing  Company,  1994;  David Wells.  No  Place  For  Truth:
Whatever   Happened  to  Evangelical  Theology?.  Grand   Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.  No serious-minded evangelical
who  cares for the Church which is "the pillar and ground of  the
truth"  can  or should ignore these three books.   One  need  not
agree with everything said in order to benefit tremendously  from
the astute historical and rigorous theological analysis contained
in their pages.
11     It  is effecting not only the teaching process, but it  is
changing the way men and women communicate the Christian  message
to  the world.  This latter change though not the subject here is
very disturbing.
12      Alister  McGrath.  Evangelicalism  and  the   Future   of
Christianity. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 26