What do you think?
Rate this book
Essays On Christian Education
207 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
2 people are currently reading
85 people want to read
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
156 books125 followersCornelius Van Til, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.
Biographical sketch
Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source: Theopedia
Biographical sketch
Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source: Theopedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 18, 2017
“Essays on Christian Education” is a deeply convicting and informative treatise on the philosophy of Christian education in society. While Cornelius Van Til writes primarily concerning the question of school education, not church education, it is remarkable how the same principles apply in both places. I personally found the book to be extremely helpful in delineating the key difference between Christian and secular education. While Van Til’s writing is highly technical, assuming a level of familiarity with philosophical categories that readers may not possess, his overall theme and approach are plain.
WHAT IS CHRISTIAN EDUCATION?
Central to Van Til’s different essays is the standard to which he holds different educational philosophies. Van Til examines the different educational perspectives presented in the various essays in such a way as to reduce them to three key components: first, their goal; second, their standard or criteria; and third, their motivation. He draws this framework from the Heidelberg Catechism’s definition of a good work:
Question 91: But what are good works?
Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.
Thus, Van Til’s definition of Christian education is that performed with God’s glory as its goal, God’s work or law as its standard, and faith as the wellspring of its motivation.
By examining these components of different educational philosophies – that is, by determining their goal, standard, and motivation – Van Til succeeds in establishing a level field for comparison. This yardstick for assessing educational philosophy is thus both biblical and simple, with the added benefit of being firmly rooted in church tradition. What I found particularly compelling about this tool, though not mentioned by Van Til, is that its utility is not merely confined to methodological issues at the program or policy level.
Being biblical, this framework has a potentially universal application. The Catechism intended these criteria to be a measure of any deed or act performed in Christian service. Their simplicity means that one need not be a systematic theologian, philosopher, or educational expert to use it. For example, the average Sunday School teacher could assess her kindergarten activities by these means. By using this tool, every teacher in the church can ensure that their educational efforts are indeed God-centered and not driven by secular ideas. That this tool comes from a nearly 450-year-old document still used in many parts of the Church further testifies to its durability and practicality.
A PRESUPPOSITIONAL CRITIQUE OF EDUCATION
Fundamental to understanding Van Til’s entire approach throughout the book is an apprehension of his “presuppositional” approach to apologetics. There are, for the presuppositionalist, two ways of thinking: that of believers, whose entire worldview is founded on the authority of God in Scripture, and that of unbelievers, whose worldview is founded on man’s speaking authoritatively for himself, in opposition to God. Since the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 9:10), one can only fully know truth if one assumes the Biblical truth of God’s revelation in Christ: “Not to presuppose the Christ of the Scriptures is not to have any foundation for human predication at any point.” Since God created them to think in a God-centred fashion, unbelievers still can (inconsistently) know and live by truth – because unbelievers mix “borrowed capital” taken from a God-centred framework among their own unbelieving presuppositions.
There is no “neutral ground” between believer and unbeliever, on which they can meet and seek the truth by commonly held values, because there can be no neutrality between the truth of God and the ways of men. Rather, they invite the unbeliever, “for the sake of argument,” to adopt the presuppositions of Christianity – such as the existence of the Triune God, the absolute authority of Scripture, and the reality of the Incarnation – and see that the resulting worldview is self-consistent and makes sense of the world around them. The Christian, again “for the sake of argument,” then adopts the unbeliever’s presuppositions to demonstrate that the unbelieving worldview is inconsistent.
Van Til applies this approach to educational philosophy, using it to reduce each alternative to absurdity. He demonstrates that any educational philosophy that replaces Christ with some other foundational authority – like human reason or science – cannot consistently comprehend the world. Presuppositionalism is thus modeled as a means of auditing assumptions about education.
I found the presuppositional examination of educational philosophy to be deeply convicting. As Van Til puts it, “there are two, and only two, mutually exclusive philosophies of education.” Man-centered philosophies attempt to live not by God’s authority but by their own judgment as their final authority. Even many Christians, including myself, are accustomed to sizing up the world from an unbelieving perspective – that is, the perspective of an autonomous, independent judge. We often fall into the trap of thinking that “by reason, apart from revelation, man may work up a truly theistic philosophy of life and therefore a truly theistic philosophy of education. All that Christians need to do is to add to a philosophy of culture established by believers and non-believers in a common effort,” forgetting that man’s view of nature determines his view of the supernatural, and vice versa. Guided by the culture and a heavily secularized education, all too many Christians see Christ as merely the answer to our questions, whatever they may be, as opposed to being the One who is posing the real questions in the first place.
When looking at Christian education in light of the critique of presuppositionalism, it becomes apparent that the most important goal of such education is the inculcation of a worldview – of a way of thinking. Sunday School and Bible study cannot simply be self-sufficient human beings applying their autonomous minds and independent hearts to learn Bible facts and Christian values. The very starting point of Christian education, not just its application, must be submission to the Lordship of Christ, or the enterprise is in vain.
Consider Sunday School curricula that start with “everyday” problems in life and find Biblical truths to apply to them. For instance, a Bible study may ask, “How do we love our wives better?” and go to Ephesians 5 or 1 Corinthians 13 for the “answer.” When applied, the outcomes – more peace, more selflessness - may reflect the Biblical ideal. Yet the question is inadequate, for it fails to treat goal or motivation. It assumes the individual husband naturally has the ability or inclination to love his wife better, but is this a Biblical assumption? It appears to imply that love for one’s wife is an ideal and is desirable, but in a world questioning everything, can a Bible study afford to assume that Christians know why loving one’s wife is a good thing? Taking the problem a step further, say the Christian does have a reason to love his wife better – it will “bring peace in the home” and “move her to love me better.” These may be desirable aims, but are they God-centred motivations? The whole approach of designing a Bible study starting with the “felt” needs of everyday life is thus shown to raise more questions than it answers. At best, the Bible will be seen as merely the most attractive or useful of a set of options to deal with the same old problems.
On the other hand, curricula saturated with the assumption of God’s absolute sovereignty will persistently remind participants alike that the reference point of all things is not the individual himself, but God and His Word. The result will, by God’s grace, be transformational, as the believer now views the world not from his old perspective but from that of God. This worldview looks at the “old” problems in a whole new way, as they are now viewed from the perspective of eternity, and opens the eyes of the believer to a whole new set of issues that are of great importance to God but are unnatural to a man-centred manner of thinking. Therefore, looking at the previous Sunday School question, it is now seen as inadequate, for husbands cannot love their wives on their own strength anyway. Furthermore, since God is the reference point of all things, no adequate objective reason has been supplied for why loving wives is necessary in the first place! Thus a proper, God-centred proper question is, “What is God’s design in the husband’s relationship with his wife?” The answer is then God-centred: marriage relationships is designed to reflect the selfless, redemptive relationship between Christ and His church, and so husband and wife are to give themselves to one another through selfless service as an act of worship to God.
AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION
As compelling as Van Til’s argument appears, it still raises a key question that he fails to answer. It should be noted that, theologically speaking, Van Til writes from a postmillennial and theonomistic perspective. His view of education is that it is a means of building and redeeming culture, which he sees as fulfilling Adam’s mandate to “subdue the earth.” This concept is integral to Van Til’s motivation of Christian education. Van Til implies repeatedly that the redemption of culture is crucial to “subduing the earth.”
However, he fails to make a case for this interpretation of both the Great Commission and of Adam’s mandate. Furthermore, and more specifically, he fails to make a New Covenant case for this task. The advent of Christ has marked a new age in God’s relationship with the world, and the fulfillment and obsolescence of many Old Covenant institutions. Most Christians today view the Mosaic civil code as being superseded, and while Van Til might cautiously agree, he never expounds on how this new state affects his view of the church’s cultural program. Instead, he presumes his view of the church’s responsibility as a given. He may well be right – but he made no case. A comprehensive treatment of the church’s mandate toward society may be beyond the scope of the book, but since that relationship is central to his point, it deserved more space than it received.
CONCLUSION
Admittedly Van Til’s writing style can be difficult and demands focus and perseverance! That said, Van Til’s book deserves to be read by anyone involved in the work of Christian education – in any context. Not all Christians, particularly those who disagree with Van Til’s staunch Calvinism, would agree with everything he says, particularly his critique of Christian education carried out from an Arminian perspective. However, his central theme – that Christian education must begin and end with recognition and submission to the Lordship of Christ in all areas – should find receptive ears in any Christian circle.
It can be most difficult to maintain an appropriate dividing line between Christian and unbelieving assumptions of life. Christians are saturated with and immersed in a hostile and pagan world, and keeping their ways of thinking and acting free of that influence is most difficult. Critiques like those of Van Til are vital if the church is to maintain a consistent and faithful witness.
WHAT IS CHRISTIAN EDUCATION?
Central to Van Til’s different essays is the standard to which he holds different educational philosophies. Van Til examines the different educational perspectives presented in the various essays in such a way as to reduce them to three key components: first, their goal; second, their standard or criteria; and third, their motivation. He draws this framework from the Heidelberg Catechism’s definition of a good work:
Question 91: But what are good works?
Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.
Thus, Van Til’s definition of Christian education is that performed with God’s glory as its goal, God’s work or law as its standard, and faith as the wellspring of its motivation.
By examining these components of different educational philosophies – that is, by determining their goal, standard, and motivation – Van Til succeeds in establishing a level field for comparison. This yardstick for assessing educational philosophy is thus both biblical and simple, with the added benefit of being firmly rooted in church tradition. What I found particularly compelling about this tool, though not mentioned by Van Til, is that its utility is not merely confined to methodological issues at the program or policy level.
Being biblical, this framework has a potentially universal application. The Catechism intended these criteria to be a measure of any deed or act performed in Christian service. Their simplicity means that one need not be a systematic theologian, philosopher, or educational expert to use it. For example, the average Sunday School teacher could assess her kindergarten activities by these means. By using this tool, every teacher in the church can ensure that their educational efforts are indeed God-centered and not driven by secular ideas. That this tool comes from a nearly 450-year-old document still used in many parts of the Church further testifies to its durability and practicality.
A PRESUPPOSITIONAL CRITIQUE OF EDUCATION
Fundamental to understanding Van Til’s entire approach throughout the book is an apprehension of his “presuppositional” approach to apologetics. There are, for the presuppositionalist, two ways of thinking: that of believers, whose entire worldview is founded on the authority of God in Scripture, and that of unbelievers, whose worldview is founded on man’s speaking authoritatively for himself, in opposition to God. Since the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 9:10), one can only fully know truth if one assumes the Biblical truth of God’s revelation in Christ: “Not to presuppose the Christ of the Scriptures is not to have any foundation for human predication at any point.” Since God created them to think in a God-centred fashion, unbelievers still can (inconsistently) know and live by truth – because unbelievers mix “borrowed capital” taken from a God-centred framework among their own unbelieving presuppositions.
There is no “neutral ground” between believer and unbeliever, on which they can meet and seek the truth by commonly held values, because there can be no neutrality between the truth of God and the ways of men. Rather, they invite the unbeliever, “for the sake of argument,” to adopt the presuppositions of Christianity – such as the existence of the Triune God, the absolute authority of Scripture, and the reality of the Incarnation – and see that the resulting worldview is self-consistent and makes sense of the world around them. The Christian, again “for the sake of argument,” then adopts the unbeliever’s presuppositions to demonstrate that the unbelieving worldview is inconsistent.
Van Til applies this approach to educational philosophy, using it to reduce each alternative to absurdity. He demonstrates that any educational philosophy that replaces Christ with some other foundational authority – like human reason or science – cannot consistently comprehend the world. Presuppositionalism is thus modeled as a means of auditing assumptions about education.
I found the presuppositional examination of educational philosophy to be deeply convicting. As Van Til puts it, “there are two, and only two, mutually exclusive philosophies of education.” Man-centered philosophies attempt to live not by God’s authority but by their own judgment as their final authority. Even many Christians, including myself, are accustomed to sizing up the world from an unbelieving perspective – that is, the perspective of an autonomous, independent judge. We often fall into the trap of thinking that “by reason, apart from revelation, man may work up a truly theistic philosophy of life and therefore a truly theistic philosophy of education. All that Christians need to do is to add to a philosophy of culture established by believers and non-believers in a common effort,” forgetting that man’s view of nature determines his view of the supernatural, and vice versa. Guided by the culture and a heavily secularized education, all too many Christians see Christ as merely the answer to our questions, whatever they may be, as opposed to being the One who is posing the real questions in the first place.
When looking at Christian education in light of the critique of presuppositionalism, it becomes apparent that the most important goal of such education is the inculcation of a worldview – of a way of thinking. Sunday School and Bible study cannot simply be self-sufficient human beings applying their autonomous minds and independent hearts to learn Bible facts and Christian values. The very starting point of Christian education, not just its application, must be submission to the Lordship of Christ, or the enterprise is in vain.
Consider Sunday School curricula that start with “everyday” problems in life and find Biblical truths to apply to them. For instance, a Bible study may ask, “How do we love our wives better?” and go to Ephesians 5 or 1 Corinthians 13 for the “answer.” When applied, the outcomes – more peace, more selflessness - may reflect the Biblical ideal. Yet the question is inadequate, for it fails to treat goal or motivation. It assumes the individual husband naturally has the ability or inclination to love his wife better, but is this a Biblical assumption? It appears to imply that love for one’s wife is an ideal and is desirable, but in a world questioning everything, can a Bible study afford to assume that Christians know why loving one’s wife is a good thing? Taking the problem a step further, say the Christian does have a reason to love his wife better – it will “bring peace in the home” and “move her to love me better.” These may be desirable aims, but are they God-centred motivations? The whole approach of designing a Bible study starting with the “felt” needs of everyday life is thus shown to raise more questions than it answers. At best, the Bible will be seen as merely the most attractive or useful of a set of options to deal with the same old problems.
On the other hand, curricula saturated with the assumption of God’s absolute sovereignty will persistently remind participants alike that the reference point of all things is not the individual himself, but God and His Word. The result will, by God’s grace, be transformational, as the believer now views the world not from his old perspective but from that of God. This worldview looks at the “old” problems in a whole new way, as they are now viewed from the perspective of eternity, and opens the eyes of the believer to a whole new set of issues that are of great importance to God but are unnatural to a man-centred manner of thinking. Therefore, looking at the previous Sunday School question, it is now seen as inadequate, for husbands cannot love their wives on their own strength anyway. Furthermore, since God is the reference point of all things, no adequate objective reason has been supplied for why loving wives is necessary in the first place! Thus a proper, God-centred proper question is, “What is God’s design in the husband’s relationship with his wife?” The answer is then God-centred: marriage relationships is designed to reflect the selfless, redemptive relationship between Christ and His church, and so husband and wife are to give themselves to one another through selfless service as an act of worship to God.
AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION
As compelling as Van Til’s argument appears, it still raises a key question that he fails to answer. It should be noted that, theologically speaking, Van Til writes from a postmillennial and theonomistic perspective. His view of education is that it is a means of building and redeeming culture, which he sees as fulfilling Adam’s mandate to “subdue the earth.” This concept is integral to Van Til’s motivation of Christian education. Van Til implies repeatedly that the redemption of culture is crucial to “subduing the earth.”
However, he fails to make a case for this interpretation of both the Great Commission and of Adam’s mandate. Furthermore, and more specifically, he fails to make a New Covenant case for this task. The advent of Christ has marked a new age in God’s relationship with the world, and the fulfillment and obsolescence of many Old Covenant institutions. Most Christians today view the Mosaic civil code as being superseded, and while Van Til might cautiously agree, he never expounds on how this new state affects his view of the church’s cultural program. Instead, he presumes his view of the church’s responsibility as a given. He may well be right – but he made no case. A comprehensive treatment of the church’s mandate toward society may be beyond the scope of the book, but since that relationship is central to his point, it deserved more space than it received.
CONCLUSION
Admittedly Van Til’s writing style can be difficult and demands focus and perseverance! That said, Van Til’s book deserves to be read by anyone involved in the work of Christian education – in any context. Not all Christians, particularly those who disagree with Van Til’s staunch Calvinism, would agree with everything he says, particularly his critique of Christian education carried out from an Arminian perspective. However, his central theme – that Christian education must begin and end with recognition and submission to the Lordship of Christ in all areas – should find receptive ears in any Christian circle.
It can be most difficult to maintain an appropriate dividing line between Christian and unbelieving assumptions of life. Christians are saturated with and immersed in a hostile and pagan world, and keeping their ways of thinking and acting free of that influence is most difficult. Critiques like those of Van Til are vital if the church is to maintain a consistent and faithful witness.
June 29, 2021
Van Til stresses the importance of Reformed Christian education (over against even Catholic, Lutheran, or Arminian/Fundamentalist education), but non-Reformed folks can appreciate Van Til's general principles. It's a bit philosophical at times, but many parts are very accessible.
Quotations here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Quotations here, here, here, here, here, and here.
October 13, 2014
The author repeated concepts a lot. Normally I find that helpful, but because I found some of the concepts difficult to grasp, this was actually helpful. Van Til is not an easy read, but he's worth it.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews