College and Worldview – A Reason for Choosing a Christian Campus

My experience in a secular institution was pretty much the same as yours.

[Lee]

Ron Bean wrote:

Sometimes being in a place where your worldview is challenged and having to defend it is a good thing. After all, that’s what’s going to happen when you finally get out in the real world. And yes, I think and 18 year old is capable….

And what particular scriptures drove this genius insight? Was it Rom. 16:19? Perhaps II Cor. 6:14 FF? I Tim. 6:4-6? Other? I mean, if you’re advocating that spending gobs of money to be lied to consistently on a daily basis under the name of higher education by those who (predominantly) hate the truth and hate the Savior is “a good thing” I would suppose you’d have a plethora of Scripture practically demanding that this be so.

“And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.” (Acts 7:22 ESV)

“Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah.” (Daniel 1:3-6 ESV)

I think a good, biblical case could be made that their secular educations were an integral part of God’s will in preparing these men for His service. Is it farfetched to think that similar instances occur today?

Agreed

Is it possible that some “Christian” world views may not be “Biblical” world views?

Years ago the Christian day school I worked in used a Christian heritage text that claimed that the closer one lived to the equator the more racially inferior they were. I was taught that mixing the races was part of the plan for a one-world government. While I’m sure that many students didn’t hold to these views, asking questions or dissent was not tolerated. My experience in secular education (post-secondary) was that I could at least voice my contrary opinion and engage in debate. Daniel and his friends went to school in Babylon, but refused to eat in the Dining Common and didn’t get expelled.

[Lee]

Ron Bean wrote:

Sometimes being in a place where your worldview is challenged and having to defend it is a good thing. After all, that’s what’s going to happen when you finally get out in the real world. And yes, I think and 18 year old is capable….

And what particular scriptures drove this genius insight? Was it Rom. 16:19? Perhaps II Cor. 6:14 FF? I Tim. 6:4-6? Other? I mean, if you’re advocating that spending gobs of money to be lied to consistently on a daily basis under the name of higher education by those who (predominantly) hate the truth and hate the Savior is “a good thing” I would suppose you’d have a plethora of Scripture practically demanding that this be so.

Lee, first of all, be careful that the snark doesn’t get too thick—I have to watch myself in this regard as well. It’s worth noting as well that, as Jim notes, most of those at a secular university are not specifically lying—that is, they are not knowingly saying things that they know not to be true. They may be saying things that are not true, and God will hold them accountable for that, but I hesitate to say that they say false things knowingly. I just can’t prove that part.

Regarding the exposure to the world, it strikes me that the entire book of Acts details the apostles and others interacting with a world that was far more hostile to a Christian worldview than ours, and doing so without Bible colleges to boot. Moreover, Paul and others were paying for the privilege by making tents (I’m told this was leatherwork in general) and through the donations of the churches. We can say the same thing, really, about any of the churches which broke off from Rome in days of yore.

[Don Johnson]

​

A lot of the discussion in this thread and the previous one has been taking shots at the local churches for not discipling well enough, etc. I don’t buy that. There are so many factors that influence young people and I think it is important for them to have a disciplined Christian environment that involves the leadership of others besides their parents. Most kids (note the word most) are not ready for the world immediately out of high school, I think it is far better for them to attend a Christian college first before they attend secular institutions.

Don, appreciate what you have to say, but if indeed Thoward is correct that many pastors are actively discouraged from making disciples—and at certain points that is my observation as well—then what other conclusion can we come to than that many churches are downplaying discipleship? Quite frankly, I personally know at least two pastors who were threatened with being fired because they were building deeply into a smaller group of real disciples—many/most of whom I’m still in touch with—instead of running more of a “big numbers” entertainment “ministry.”

In other cases, what I’ve seen is that apart from preaching sermons where the text was used as a “launching pad” for what the pastor wanted to say, many pastors really don’t interact one on one with congregants like Paul did Timothy, Barnabas, and Titus. So really, the question is not whether many churches have this problem, but is rather what proportion of churches have it, and what the “body count” is.

And to be fair, a lot of the problem lies in parents as well—if Mom and Dad simply show up for church and write checks and don’t do family or personal devotions, good luck persuading the little ones to get in the habit.

The question I’ve got is whether the relative isolation one finds at many Bible colleges is helpful in fixing this, especially remembering that the kids are often going to the alma mater of the same pastor who himself failed to make discipleship a priority in his ministry. For me, that’s the kicker—the training the pastor got isn’t enough to persuade him to actively make disciples, and to “fix” the problem, we’re going to give kids…..pretty much the same training that failed for the pastor. I’m a quality engineer by trade, and that’s an approach that will always get a corrective action plan rejected—we’d write something like Your system is perfectly designed to give you exactly the results you’re getting. Change the system.

I’m not opposed to Bible colleges, but I cringe at the idea that they’re going to fix in four years what went wrong over the first 18 years of someone’s life. They ought to have a better purpose than that!

[Don Johnson] ​

However, we can keep going on and on about this, but we are just repeating our opinions over and over, so I’ll not bother.

The subject of finances, student debt, etc, has also come up. I think that is an important topic also and will plan to publish an article on that one soon.

I agree about the entrenched positions. I have always held to a child by child and situation by situation case. I was accepted at Yale, before I chose BJU. Would I have been better off going to Yale? Who knows. I know that I appreciated my time at BJU, and the Lord has blessed me in my life. I am not really a person who questions my past choices too much. Maybe I was totally unique, who knows.

Finances/student debt are always an interesting discussion. I really had no help when I arrived at BJU. My parents had never gone to college and they had never heard of BJ. So I just took a plane and hopped on a bus to some school called BJU. I was able to graduate with no debt and no special gifts. I just worked my tail off like there was nothing else. So it is possible to get through college without financial assistance, it just takes choices. May not be the smartest decision or the right decision for everyone, but I had a strong work ethic and I made it work.

[Larry Nelson]

…

“And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.” (Acts 7:22 ESV)

I think you’ll find that the pivot point for Moses from living by “the wisdom of the Egyptians” and being the Moses that “was mighty in words and deeds”, even becoming the man described as being “very meek, above all the men which were upon…the earth [Num. 12:3] “ is recorded in Exodus 4:24 FF. IOW, God had to seriously intervene to negate the worldview of the Egyptians (might makes right [Ex. 2:12]; identity through circumcision rejected; etc.) so that Moses could be the man he was.

Interesting to me that this is the example you would choose when it was this same Moses, trained in the schools of Egypt (places completely immersed in idolatry) whose instruction to those entering the promised land was specifically: “…make no covenant with them…neither…make marriages…thine eye shall have no pity upon them…”; their “images of their gods ye shall burn…[and] not desire the silver or gold that is on them…neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house…but thou shalt utterly detest it and…utterly abhor it….” (Dt. 7:2,3,16, 25-26). These do not sound like the instructions of one who found his education in the idolatry/worldview of Egypt to be “a good thing.”

“Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah.” (Daniel 1:3-6 ESV)

I think a good, biblical case could be made that their secular educations were an integral part of God’s will in preparing these men for His service. That is the message you are getting from the narrative of Daniel? That an upbringing in the Law of God as a chosen child of God is insufficient, and that the key element to being used by God in an idolatrous culture that is the agent of God in judgment upon Judah for their idolatry is being immersed in the “learning” of that same idolatrous culture?

Is it farfetched to think that similar instances occur today?

Emphasis/edits mine.

I think it is pointless to second-guess the sovereignty of God in his utilization of apparent anomalies. Scripture is filled with these unexplainable narratives—Samson, Jepthah, Barak, Balaam, and Solomon to name a few. However, it is equally pointless to reference these anomalies as normative when you consider the redundancy of biblical instruction on avoiding the influence of idolatrous culture in the thinking or activities of the child of God.

[Lee]

Larry Nelson wrote:

…

“And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.” (Acts 7:22 ESV)

I think you’ll find that the pivot point for Moses from living by “the wisdom of the Egyptians” and being the Moses that “was mighty in words and deeds”, even becoming the man described as being “very meek, above all the men which were upon…the earth [Num. 12:3] “ is recorded in Exodus 4:24 FF. IOW, God had to seriously intervene to negate the worldview of the Egyptians (might makes right [Ex. 2:12]; identity through circumcision rejected; etc.) so that Moses could be the man he was.

Interesting to me that this is the example you would choose when it was this same Moses, trained in the schools of Egypt (places completely immersed in idolatry) whose instruction to those entering the promised land was specifically: “…make no covenant with them…neither…make marriages…thine eye shall have no pity upon them…”; their “images of their gods ye shall burn…[and] not desire the silver or gold that is on them…neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house…but thou shalt utterly detest it and…utterly abhor it….” (Dt. 7:2,3,16, 25-26). These do not sound like the instructions of one who found his education in the idolatry/worldview of Egypt to be “a good thing.”

“Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah.” (Daniel 1:3-6 ESV)

I think a good, biblical case could be made that their secular educations were an integral part of God’s will in preparing these men for His service. That is the message you are getting from the narrative of Daniel? That an upbringing in the Law of God as a chosen child of God is insufficient, and that the key element to being used by God in an idolatrous culture that is the agent of God in judgment upon Judah for their idolatry is being immersed in the “learning” of that same idolatrous culture?

Is it farfetched to think that similar instances occur today?

Emphasis/edits mine.

I think it is pointless to second-guess the sovereignty of God in his utilization of apparent anomalies. Scripture is filled with these unexplainable narratives—Samson, Jepthah, Barak, Balaam, and Solomon to name a few. However, it is equally pointless to reference these anomalies as normative when you consider the redundancy of biblical instruction on avoiding the influence of idolatrous culture in the thinking or activities of the child of God.

what about Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? I suppose those are unexplainable narratives as well?

[Lee]

I think a good, biblical case could be made that their secular educations were an integral part of God’s will in preparing these men for His service. That is the message you are getting from the narrative of Daniel? That an upbringing in the Law of God as a chosen child of God is insufficient, and that the key element to being used by God in an idolatrous culture that is the agent of God in judgment upon Judah for their idolatry is being immersed in the “learning” of that same idolatrous culture?

Is it farfetched to think that similar instances occur today?

Emphasis/edits mine.

I think it is pointless to second-guess the sovereignty of God in his utilization of apparent anomalies. Scripture is filled with these unexplainable narratives—Samson, Jepthah, Barak, Balaam, and Solomon to name a few. However, it is equally pointless to reference these anomalies as normative when you consider the redundancy of biblical instruction on avoiding the influence of idolatrous culture in the thinking or activities of the child of God.

Probably the big question here is exactly WHAT is anomalous. Noah lived among grievous sinners, as did the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob’s seed was in slavery among the pagans for 400 years, and then found themselves among…the pagans they’d failed to misplace, and I believe God tells us they were left for that reason, and so young Israelites would learn the art of war. Even in ages when the pagans were mostly gone, several major trade routes go through Israel, and they had, again, a lot of ….pagans…among them. And then we have the Church, sent among hostile….Jews, and also hostile….pagans.

Moreover, we can, without risking “Trail of Blood” or “Landmark” theology, remember the treatment that Jan Hus, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Puritans and Separatists, believing churches in Communist nations, believers among Nazis….and the like have gotten since the apostolic age. Really, if we are to make disciples of all nations….OK, exactly where are we to do that? Is there Scriptural support for separating from the world beyond ecclesiastical separation, or did Jesus tell us that (John 17:15) that we are to be in, but not of, the world?

If the very gates of Hell will not stand against the Church, does that not imply that….the Church is in a way assaulting the very citadel of the evil one? That we are in hand to hand combat in a very dangerous place?

I would agree that we need to be extremely careful building from narrative and history; as Lee notes, it’s dangerous business. But that said, I do think it’s fair to infer that God may have had a purpose in keeping His people in at least periodic contact with blasphemers and pagans. Definitely in fellowship, but not isolated from unbelievers.

A picture; in sports, you can become pretty good in practice, but you get that extra edge after a few games against the opponent. Maybe Paul and the writer of Hebrews use athletic analogies, as well as military ones, for that very reason.

to argue for secular education from Old Testament examples. You are really reaching, if you think these examples have anything to do with your argument.

I get that you disagree with Christian education, but the question of choosing or not choosing Christian/secular education has nothing to do with these Biblical narratives. Talk about eisegesis! You can do better than that.

Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. I’m sure he would have chosen StateU over the Christian college.

Is having an evangelistic dinner the same thing as sitting under the professorship of someone? And how did you become sure that Jesus would have chosen StateU over the Christian college? I am not sure what Jesus would have done, but if there is a method by which we can be sure, I would be curious to hear it.

[pvawter]

Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. I’m sure he would have chosen StateU over the Christian college.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. I caught on. :^)

Seriously, this raises a very important question, and it’s one where we really don’t have that good of an answer what He would have done, starting of course with the fact that of course as God, He is omniscient and doesn’t need any education to speak of. The one theory that I can think of that addresses this is the theory that since Christ’s ministry started at age 30, the age at which a rabbi might leave the school and start to serve, He might have attended a rabbinical school, which would have likely been a Pharisaical or Saddusaical one opposed to the true message of the Messiah.

A good argument against this theory is that if He had done so, He would have either had to hide His knowledge (really lying to his instructors, a sin), or He would have accumulated such a spectacular record at his “yeshiva” that He would have been compelled to start His earthly ministry before He was 30. Think of how the priests at the Temple were impressed when He was twelve, no? At the very least, keeping that ministry to the right time while avoiding sin would have been a neat trick.

And really, I think it’s important here that we keep our categories straight. There are two questions we can answer here; “Is Christian education useful at all?” (my answer; emphatically yes if done well) and “Does Christian education as currently constituted help young Christians get a more Biblical worldview” (to which my answer is “generally no”). We can also suggest a third question, related to the second, of “Does Christian education help with sanctification?”, and my answer to that one is also “generally no”.

That question also suggests another tact at getting at an answer; if we would treat Bible College as an indispensable part of sanctification, we would then wonder why the Scriptures make no such argument—and we’re back at Tyler’s point (if I remember correctly) about the primacy of the Church in these matters, not parachurch organizations.

Total proof? No, but sometimes, we don’t have enough solid premises with deductive logic, and hence we need to resort to inference and inductive logic. And for me, the consistent exposure of God’s people to contrary arguments and even harassment or worse at the hands of the Godless makes a point, as does Christ’s promise of chastisement for those who are in Him, makes the case that there can be something genuinely dangerous about too much isolation from the world.