Outlook Editor:

The March, 1979 issue of the Outlook contained an article by the Rev. Peter De Jong entitled “Are Christian Schools Teaching the Bible?” The article claims to present some of the observations of the author based on a critical comparison of two Bible curricula that we publish, the older Historical Study (in gr. 4–6, My Bible Guides) series and the Revelation Response series. Since the article was very critical of the Revelation Response curriculum, please permit us to respond. We are convinced that neither the RevelationResponse series nor the Historical Study series was evaluated fairly. We offer both, along with the Bible Study series, as meaningful choices for Christian educators. Our critical analysis of both curricula yields much different conclusions than those presented in the article of De Jong. We appreciate the opportunity to s hare our analysis and conclusions with your readers. We too shall focus primarily. as did De Jong, on the material for grades 4 through 6, although both curricula encompass grades K–9. Both curricula include the best materials currently available for Christian day school education in Bible.

Since DeJong’s article assumes that the Revelation-Response series is “not designed to teach the Bible,” a comparison of the contents of the newer material with the contents of the Historical Study series is most enlightening. A comparison of the two curricula reveals the following:

a) The older My Bible Guide grade 4 covers the biblical stories contained in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel. The grade 5 material covers the stories in 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1 & 2 Kings. Jonah, select chapters from Isaiah and Jeremiah in connection with 2 Kings, Daniel 1–6, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The grade 6 material includes stories from the life of Jesus and from the Acts of the Apostles.

b) The Revelation Response grade 4 God’s Witnesses covers the biblical stories in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and the lives of Elijah and Elisha in 1 & 2 Kings. In addition grade 4 also studies the gospel passion narrative, Ephesians, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. Grade 6 God’s Kingdom covers the lives of Saul, David and Solomon. (Similarly as My Bible Guide covers 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings.) But grade 5 also includes units on Psalms, Proverbs. Amos. James, gospel stories. ascension stories and Acts of the Apostles. Grade 6, after a unit on Covenant, includes lessons on the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, and Malachi, as well as on Esther, the gospels, Acts, Romans. Corinthians. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. and Revelation. Grades 5 and 6 review significant passages studied earlier. A complete analysis of the Bible passages studied in Revelation Response is available on request so that readers can see for themselves that Revelation–Response is also designed to teach the Bible.

Which of the two curricula covers more of the Bible? The Historical Study series has one lesson each on Isaiah and Jeremiah, three on Daniel, and none on Ezekiel, Haggai, or Malachi. The Historical Study series for grades 4–6 does not cover the Psalms, the Proverbs, or the epistles. The Teacher’s Manual of My Bible Guide , grade 6, p.9, states that “lack of space . . . accounts for the omission of lessons on the epistles in t he pupil‘s manual and for their scanty treatment in the teacher’s manual.” On p. 189, it states, “It is impossible for the teacher to devote much time to the epistles, but at least have the pupils find these books in their Bibles and help the children understand that they are letters written by missionaries, usually to churches.” When we designed the newer series we deliberately included more of the Bible, not less, in order to overcome this problem. The Revelation Response mate· rial grades 4–6 not only covers most of the material found in the Historical Study series, grades 4–6, but also includes units on some of the epistles as well as on some of the prophets. We think that it is especially appropriate for us to point this out because De Jong’s article comes to the conclusion that the newer series is “not designed to teach the Bible” and the implication is that the older series teaches much more of t he Bible than does the RevelationResponse curriculum. However, as can be seen from the above comparison of content, this is simply not factual. Both series have served and continue to serve tens of thousands of God’s children well. the older one for over 16 years and the newer one for half as long.

Are the Christian schools teaching the Bible? How does one judge? Some people might answer this question on the basis of the amount of Bible memorization required. We would grant that this may not be a conclusive criterion for judgment. Nevertheless, since it is an important factor, and since De Jong assumes that the Revelation Response curriculum is not teaching the Bible while the Historical Study curriculum does, we thought that a comparison of the minimal amount of Bible memorization in each curriculum might be interesting. We shall cite only our findings for grade 4, although the case is similar for grades 5 and 6. The minimal amount of Bible memorization in My Bible Guide grade 4 is listed as: names of the Old Testament books; Ten Commandments; Psalm 103; Matthew 11:28–30 and Romans 12:1–8. It is not related to lesson content. Bible memorization in the Revelation–Response curriculum is related to lesson content and t he minimal amount of grade 4 material is listed as: Genesis 12:1–2 and 17:7–8; the Ten Commandments; Joshua 24:15; Ruth 1:16. 17; 1 Samuel 2:2; Psalm 8, 115:1-3, and 146:1–3; Isaiah 9:2 and 40:11; Matthew 16:16; Mark 10:45; John 15:12–14; Ephesians 5:1, 2; Philippians 2:8–11; Colossians 3:12–14; and Hebrews 1:1–2, 11:1–3, 6, 8, and 24–29. Does the older or newer Bible curriculum teach more of the Bible? On the basis of the minimal amount of Bible memorization listed in each the answer is clear. The Revelation–Response curriculum requires the student to know more of the Bible from memory than does the Historical Study curriculum (in the grades analyzed). Here too. we will be happy to send upon request a complete analysis of the required and optional memorization in the Revelation–Response curriculum so that the readers can see for themselves how much of the Bible is memorized by Revelation–Response students. (Readers can also use it to review their own memorization of significant Bible passages. For a recent article on our views about memorizing the Bible, read the curriculum column in the March. 1979 Christian Home and School.)

We all know that putting more of the Bible in the curriculum doesn’t guarantee that students will learn more of it. But here too the evidence is contrary to Rev. De Jong’s assumptions. Independently, the principals of two neighboring schools compared their results this year on a test of Bible comprehension given to their students at grades 5–9. In each grade level, Revelation–Response students scored significantly higher than the Historical Study students. Admittedly t his is only one pair of schools and a larger study should be made.

At the heart of Rev. DeJong’s analysis of the two curricula is the thought expressed in the opening paragraphs of his article:

The older ser ies of books generally follows the chronological order and sets out to acquaint the student with Bible history. Emphasis falls on teaching the child to know the Bible. its contents, and message. Efforts are made to apply t his content and message in a personal and practical way to the students’ life.

The newer books are much more elaborate and colorful. The name “Revelation–Response” may suggest what is immediately apparent throughout the books, an emphasis on “Response.” . . . the predominating emphasis is on the students‘ feelings and activities.

Our critical comparison of the two curricula reveals that attempts in the older series to apply “the content and message in a personal and practical way to the students’ life” are few. Apart from the personalized question which introduces the daily optional memory text in the My Bible Guide material there simply are not many explicit efforts to apply the biblical message. The student workbook concentrates on filling in blanks, choosing the right word, learning the correct spelling of biblical names, finding answers in the Bible, etc. This makes it easy for teachers and students to use. The Historical Study curriculum is mainly concerned with learning facts and the personal and practical application virtually drops out of sight. (Check, for example, the randomly selected lessons 40–45, pp. 131 ff. in the student workbook, grade 4.)

Recognizing this situation, at its 1969 annual meeting in Philadelphia the National Union of Christian Schools resolved to “take immediate steps to re-evaluate its present religion-theology program and course of study with the goal being to make the program more relevant with respect to the problems of our contemporary society so as to prepare our students for wise decision-making and consequent involvement in problem solving.” Then in the spring of 1970 the Union’s Board of Directors accepted a proposal to prepare a set of Bible curriculum materials “as an alternate to present NUCS Bible study guides, not to replace them”; and with a “basic organization . . . different from the present NUCS Bible study guides.” They decided that “the curriculum should promote knowledge of the Scriptures and an understanding of the continuous interaction between the Scriptures and the whole developing Christian life of the pupil.” Throughout the curriculum development we engaged the services of the best Christian artists in our community and used the optimum printing technology to reproduce their work.

The Revelation–Response curriculum encourages response. We consciously attempt to sensitize, not force, students to respond to God. In doing so, the curriculum attempts to make the personal and practical application of the biblical message much more explicit than the Historical Study material did. And in fact the Revelation-Response material is based on the premise that the biblical message demands response. Thus response is built into the curriculum–intellectual, decisional, and creative response. But to say, as De Jong does in his article, that “the predominate emphasis is on the students’ feel ing and activities” is both inaccurate and misleading. It is inaccurate because over 60% of the objectives in the Revelation Response curriculum are intellectual. The predominate emphasis is therefore not on the students’ feelings and activities but on knowing and understanding God‘s revelation. De Jong‘s statement is misleading because many of the activities designed for the students aim to increase knowledge and understanding of the Bible. They are not an end in themselves. They often presuppose or reinforce the intellectual content of the lesson . Moreover, we are not at all surprised that De Jong is able to find involvement-type activities, and even activities which are enjoyable. These are, of course, intentional. Our concern is, however, that your readers get the wrong message from De Jong’s compilation of examples in his article . For example DeJong states, “In a lesson in the Grade 6 teacher’s manual a ‘covenant celebration‘ is suggested featuring a ‘covenant cake,’ punch for ‘wine,’ crackers for bread, and hot–cross buns.” To put this in perspective let’s note that the grade 6 material has a 4 week unit on the Covenant which is centered around the following concept: “The basis of God’s community is the divine covenant. The student studies the concept of covenant and how the old covenant is fulfilled in Christ. Students will appreciate how the covenant with God affects their covenant relationships in community” (p. 15 teacher’s manual). There are 10 lessons in this unit which involve some rather in-depth and rigorous biblical study for 6th graders. The unit ends with a lesson on “Perfection of the Covenant” (the wedding of Christ and His Bride). The one activity which DeJong mentions is not in the lesson itself but simply a telling of what one teacher did with a class independently of the curriculum structure and as such is suggested as an optional culminating activity for the unit. How much more is contained in this unit which is completely ignored and overlooked in De Jong’s critical analysis! It is unfortunate that your readers cannot see the full scope of the units. Instead they are introduced to only one suggested activity in a four week unit. The same is true of the example which De Jong cites from the Grade 4 Teacher Guide (p. 18, not p. 16) regarding “the Bread of Life.” De Jong fails to mention that in this lesson (John 6), which is about Christ himself feeding 5000 people and talking about bread and its importance, and showing the connection with manna and how the Old Testament is being fulfilled; there is the telling of the story of Jesus as the Bread of Life; there is reflection on the audience responses to Jesus in John 6; there is reflection on types of responses of people today to Jesus as the Bread of Life; and there is opportunity for students to express their thoughts about this “I am” of Jesus. We ask the teacher to create empathy for those hungry people and their concern for bread. The one activity which De Jong cites from this lesson is listed as an optional ending to the lesson and is intended to add meaning for a class of students who do not know hunger. Although any tangible use of bread might unfortunately be misconstrued as infringing on the sacrament of the Lord‘s Supper, there is no intention here of a “hap–hazard caricature of the Lord’s Supper.”

When the activities suggested in the Revelation–Response material are seen in the perspective of the whole unit or even the specific lesson in which they are contained, it is difficult to agree with De Jong’s conclusion that “the books (‘student activity books’) evidently embody the assumptions of some modern educationists and philosophers that students ‘learn only by doing’ and whatever they cannot handle and do is meaningless to them.” On the basis of this judgment the RevelationResponse curriculum is then accused of carrying “such fallacious educational theories to ridiculous extremes.” We trust that the material presented above shows your readers that the accusation is not correct. We believe that when the biblical content and message is applied in a personal and practical way to the whole developing life of Christian students, they will retain that message well. Our materials embody the assumptions of solid Reformed thinking throughout the ages.

Is the Revelation–Response curriculum “getting away from the Bible,’” as it is charged? The basis for this charge seems to be the fact that the grade 4 material includes some lessons on a Jewish celebration called “Hanukkah” and the grade 5 material has two units on “Kingdom Symbols.” We do not agree that the units on Kingdom Symbols substantiate the charge. De Jong’s assumption is that such units do not teach Bible. We would challenge that assumption. Since most of the symbols · studied derive their meaning and significance from the Bible it is necessary for the student to know the background and the basic biblical material to appreciate and understand the symbols.

We agree that the study of Hanukkah in the fourth grade is extra-biblical. But one such example does not warrant the charges that the Revelation-Response material is “getting away from the Bible” and that the “search for interesting and different material sometimes carries them (the Revelation–Response books) far afield from the Bible, to t he neglect of what the Bible does teach.” We have already established the fact that the Revelation–Response series covers more of the Bible than the Historical Study series does at these grade levels. But we might also note that both curricula suggest that material other than the Bible be studied. In the Teachers’ Manuals of the Historical Study series we state, “Sometimes the Bible period should be devoted to the study of missions” (grade 4 – p. 10, grade 5 – p. 17, grade 6 – p. 15). Teaching material other than the Bible is not in itself inappropriate and is not in itself “getting away from the Bible.” We agree that the extra-biblical materials ought not crowd out the Bible teaching and are careful to limit them to those which are significant for understanding and applying the Word.

Furthermore, De Jong regrets that in the Revelation–Response material Malachi is dismissed with a single page (grade 6 Teachers Guide, p. 49). A critical comparison of Revelation-Response with Historical Study series shows that even with only one page devoted to Malachi, the Revelation–Response coverage far exceeds that of the Historical Study, which completely omits the study of this prophet.

We do not think either curriculum material is perfect. Some statements could undoubtedly be improved. We welcome suggestions for consideration when we reprint our materials. We have background materials and papers explaining the goals and focus of our Revelation–Response curriculum . We will gladly send them to people who request them. We are very serious about the Bible and we want our students both to understand and to appropriately respond to the message of God in the Bible.

When De Jong cites inaccuracies and errors in the Revelation–Response material he comes dangerously close to an unreformed dualism. For example, the Teachers’ Manual, grade 6, reflects on Isaiah’s observations on the way the people of Israel were living. De Jong objects to this because it seems to be “humanistic” and “to completely obscure the revelation and action of God which characterized the preaching of God’s people.” We think that the reformed doctrine of organic inspiration prohibits one from making a dualistic either/or in the message of the prophets. Isaiah, and for example Paul, observed the life of God‘s people. They spoke to that situation, and to it they brought the Word of the Lord. The alternative, it would seem to us, is to maintain that the prophets walked around blindfolded and spoke what some voice told them while they were totally oblivious to the situation. We would consider this latter description of the prophet’s activity to be unreformed.

De Jong cites one example of “downright ‘heresy’” in the Revelation–Response material, in the statement “through the incarnation God became a human person” (Teachers’ Manual, p . xxv). Our wording is an attempt to paraphrase John 1:1, 14 concerning the Word which was God and which became flesh, and Philippians 2:6 concerning Jesus Christ, “who existing in the form of God . . . took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man.” Certainly to say that Jesus was “perfect God and perfect man, of reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting” (Athanasian Creed, Art. 32) is to confess that the Son, who was and is God, became man . The Nicene creed’s confession is “that our Lord Jesus Christ . . . very God or very God . . . for us and for our salvation . . . was incarnate . . . and was made man.” If De Jong wants to call using “human person” as a synonym for the generic “man” or “flesh” heresy, there is no argument which is going to convince him otherwise.

Finally, when De Jong alleges that the Revelation–Response curriculum is “not designed to teach the Bible” we could weep . We detect a basic error in DeJong’s charge, i.e., the assumption that the truly way to teach Bible, or the only curriculum designed to do so, is the chronologically organized curriculum. But this is certainly not true. The Bible itself is not chronologically-organized. For example Job lived at the time of Genesis, the Psalms were written at the time of 1 & 2 Samuel, nine of the epistles were written at the time of the Acts and most of them are not given in chronological sequence in the Bible. Many preachers preach from various texts in the Bible—not at all chronologically organized—yet we would not accuse them of not intending to preach the Bible! Both curricula are intended to teach more than the facts of Bible history, and both generally follow a chronological ordering of the material. Nonetheless, the readers will be interested to know that the Historical Study series takes the students through the Bible once every three years. The RevelationResponse series takes them through it once each year to see the chronological sequence more clearly and to emphasize the overall unity of the Scriptures. Then in grades 7–8, the Revelation–Response curriculum includes an in-depth formal study of redemption–history.

In connection with this charge we note that DeJong judges that the materials included in the Revelation–Response books were organized in rather random fashion and chosen according to the inclinations of those who were planning the course. “Accordingly,” says De Jong, “popular, even ‘faddish’ themes get emphasized . . . .” The Revelation–Response themes are God‘s Great Love, Covenant, Judgment and Hope, Salvation and Service, Creation and Providence, The Church, God’s Witnesses, God’s Kingdom, God’s Community, Analysis of Revelation, Redemption–History, and Interpretation of Revelation. To say that these are faddish is irresponsible journalism. We want to state very emphatically that the materials were not chosen simply out of the inclinations or the planners and from the fads of the day. The Revelation-Response curriculum clearly spells out the “Criteria for Selection of Content” (cf., Teacher Guides, p. x). We invite you to read that section and will be happy to send a free copy on request. If you do read the criteria for selection, you will see that they are not the “presently faddish” or “personal whim” which De Jong superficially cites.

We wish to be corrected if we are wrong, and we hope that we are, but we read the concluding page of De Jong’s critique as saying, by implication and association, that there is no room for God and His revelation in the Revelation–Response series. Moreover we find in the concluding paragraph a suggestion that the Revelation· Response curriculum is a departure from the Word of God. We consider this to be a wholly unwarranted charge -one not to be made nor taken lightly. We even read, what to us is incredible, the implication that the Revelation–Response curriculum is the work of the devil. (What else could be intended by the statement, “A look at some of these newer Bible manuals suggests that, in the words of our Lord, ‘while men slept,’ the ‘enemy’ has been sowing his ‘tares’ also in this field, Matt. 13:25”?) Such a charge is most unbecoming of a Christian brother. Such a charge calls for an apology to all the many devoted Christian people who worked hard and long to develop the new Bible curriculum and to many more who are working hard each day to use it effectively for the growth of God’s children in Christ. Hundreds have told us how the Holy Spirit worked in their lives through this, admittedly imperfect, means.

We appreciate DeJong’s support for the Historical Study series . It is a good series for those who want an academic, easy–touse, historical study of the Bible. Many people share his view that its lack of art or color is a strength but others see it as a weakness. Such differences are legitimate and to be expected in a Christian community. De Jong’s charges that we are “getting away from the Bible” and that Revelation–Response is “not designed to teach the Bible” are not factual. The facts are that in grade 4, the older series includes passages from seven Old Testament Books and the newer one from fifteen Old and eighteen New Testament Books. The old has thirty-three required plus forty-one optional memory verses while the new has fifty-two required plus one optional memory verse at this grade level. Revelation-Response requires more involvement by students and an independent comparison indicated that at least in two schools grades 5·9 Revelation–Response students retain more. The Revelation-Response series is good for those who want to study more of the Bible than its history, to apply biblical teachings to more of the students’ lives than the academic, and to commit considerable effort to the task. We have followed the mandate of our 1970 Board of Directors and we offer the schools a meaningful choice within a solid framework of Reformed Christianity.

Sincerely, CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL (formerly the National Union of Christian Schools)

   

EDITOR‘S RESPONSE

The interested reader is invited to read my article in the March OUTLOOK and then judge whether Christian Schools International in this letter answers the criticisms of its newer Bible curriculum.

In this letter the publisher of these materials cites evidence to show that the new Bible curriculum covers a lot of the Bible. Citing weaknesses of the older curriculum, it alleges that the newer one covers some sections of the Bible which the older did not and assigns more memory work. And it tries to show that users of the new material Jearn and retain more of the Bible than users of the older curriculum.

My article was not written hastily or thoughtlessly and did not arise out of ill will. Over most of 40 years in the ministry I have been promoting and from time to time have been more directly involved in Christian schools, for a while as a board member and officer. The survey of these Bible curricula which I was asked to do for a local school was necessarily limited and dealt more extensively with the newer than with the older materials. My article did not deny that the newer materials in some way covered much of the Bible or that some of the lessons were well done. It observed, “at some points there is indication of careful Bible study and explanation (in introducing some of the psalms, for example).” It did not deny the efforts or devotion which went into producing or using these materials. It did not criticize them for using illustrations or a colorful format. And it did not say, as this letter makes it say that “there is no room for God and His revelation in the Revelation-Response series.”

Let the reader observe that this letter from the publisher, despite all of the evidence which it cites in defense of its materials, does not answer the critical ob· servations which I made about the way in which the Bible is treated in them:

(1) The subjectivist approach in which the “response” tends to overshadow the “revelation.”

(2) Inaccuracies and errors, of which I cited a few obvious examples. (Charging me with “unreformed dualism” and maintaining “that the prophets walked around blind folded” does not justify the textbook’s statement that “The worship of the people did not make them God‘s chosen people because their worship was not from the heart.” A reference to John 1:1, 14 and to Phil. 2:6 does not justify contradicting the carefully formulated doctrine of the Athanasian creed about the Person of Christ, in the statement “through the incarnation God became a human person.”)

(3) Organization of the curriculum neither around the order and organization of the Bible itself, nor around the teachings or doctrines of the Bible (as older catechisms did) but rather around more or less arbitrarily selected themes.

(4) The indications of the influence of the “new hermeneutic” approach which is making inroads in our churches and which characterizes the viewpoint of some suggested reference materials as well as of some of the theological consultants.

Listing the wide range of Bible materials covered, as the letter does, shows nothing about the depth or accuracy of the coverage.

In Matthew 16 (as in the parallel gospels) we read that after Peter’s wonderful confession of faith, the Lord not only commended him, but also had to proceed immediately to correct and warn him because of the devil’s momentarily successful effort to nullify that confession. If the Lord had to warn the Apostle Peter against the devil’s effort to mislead his preaching and teaching, why should anyone find it “incredible” that the devil could have anything to do with weaknesses or errors in our Bible teaching? To recognize that it is the devil who tries to mislead us in these things by no means implies that we say that the work of our churches and schools is simply the work of the devil. It rather means that in obedience to the Lord we be alerted against the effort of the devil to hinder Christ’s cause in our churches and schools, which are among his primary targets.

Let the reader read the criticisms of weaknesses in the curriculum and the publisher’s defense of it. Better still, let each one begin to ask how the Bible is being taught to our children in our Christian schools. I believe that many of our readers, if they look into these Bible manuals will find many examples of the weaknesses which troubled me and which I cited in the OUTLOOK article. Perhaps parents or teachers among our readers may want to comment on this subject. More prayer, attention and effort directed toward our Christian schools may lead to their improvement; neglect will not.

THE DECISION TO ALLOW WOMEN DEACONS: PERMISSIVE OR MANDATORY?

In discussing with some friends the decision of Synod ’78 re women deacons, an interesting comment came out. If the church order change is ratified as it stands (see p. 105, Acts 78) and Synod ’79 does not make the determination that women deacons voting on Council violates man’s headship, then the idea of allowing female nominations will not be permissive but mandatory! Here’s what I mean . . . If a woman seeks nomination but a particular Council (elders and deacons) turns her down and will not even bring her name up in the Council for possible nomination on the grounds that she is a woman, then she would have a legitimate reason (church order –wise) to call that Council to task before Classis, because the permissive intent of the Synodical decision of ’78 does not show up in the intended church order change. Also, any Council stating refusal to allow female nominations, even if no one wished to make any, would automatically be in violation of church order for the same reason.

I personally would like to see a determination by Synod ’79 that women voting in Council violates man’s headship because in truth the Council and not the Consistory is the ruling body in our church government . . . but short of that the Synod must add to the proposed supplement—“and how this work is to be distinguished from that of elders in light of male (husband) headship is left to individual Councils.”

If this addition (supplement to the proposed supplement) is not made and Synod ’79 ratifies the changes as is (not taking a stand against women voting in Council) then the decision of Synod ’78 as reflected in the revised church order would no longer be permissive but mandatory and Synod ’79 would virtually be forcing the 30 or so churches and classes making appeal to be in violation of church order . . . an unwise move to say the least!

PAUL INGENERI Grand Rapids, Michigan