In 1929, Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen left Princeton Seminary (along with a few other men) on the grounds that Princeton had become too liberal. As Van Til notes, Princeton was “reorganized in accordance with the new inclusive policy” (Van Til). Princeton had succumbed to a liberal agenda enlisting two members to the new board who were signatories of the Auburn Affirmation, “which allowed broad tolerance on doctrinal matters” (Balmer). Van Til equated this with that of communists appointed to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Because of this restructuring, Machen believed that “The gospel of salvation by grace from dead works would no longer be taught there without compromise. This gospel would be diluted with the supposed wisdom of man” (Van Til). For Machen, there was to be no stark antithesis between the Christian and non-Christian worldview given Princeton’s adherence to a modernist view; nor was there was to be any compromise with a watered-down gospel at the foundation of a Christian educational institution.
It was on the heels of this controversy, in the summer of 1929, that Westminster Theological Seminary was formed. Men such as Machen, Oswald Allis, Geerhardus Vos, and later Cornelius Van Til, left Princeton for they understood that Princeton’s liberal view was unbiblical and not conducive to education. They often declared that Westminster was the flame that Princeton once was.
Now if Princeton’s move towards liberalism prompted Christian educators to leave because of the antithetical nature of a liberal worldview, what ought to be the Christian’s response then towards non-Christian education?
There are three things the Christian must take into consideration.
First: the terms.
The word educate comes from the Latin ēdūcō (ē (ex)+ dūcō)), which is literally translated “to bring forth,” or “lead out of.” When used in the context of schooling or training, it means to “lead out of ignorance,” for to educate someone would be to lead them out of a prior state of darkness or from a lack of knowledge.
The other is antithesis, which means direct contrast or opposition. Jesus puts forth the antithesis in Matthew 12:30 when he states, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” There is no neutral ground here. Those who are not with Jesus are against him; they are actively working in opposition to Him.
Second: the role of the Church and State.
As the United States separated from England, there was also a separation of the function of the Church from the function of the State. Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Often misinterpreted as the separation of Church and State (which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, not the Constitution), the intent of this amendment was to prevent a Church/State government such as that found in England which was plagued by religious wars for hundreds of years depending on which ‘religious institution’ was in power at the time.
Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of a theistic worldview; they understood after Romans 13:1 that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” The Church’s function was to proclaim the gospel and to educate (in fact, the church established the many universities and colleges we have today- though many have become liberal and now provide secular education). The governments’ function was to protect its citizens and bear the sword against the evildoer. Both were deemed subject to God.
Functions of the Church and State, however, have changed in recent years. The State has not so much as separated itself from the Church, but has divorced itself from God. Considering itself autonomous, the State has taken over education and removed any semblance of God. State-run schools therefore, now conflict with the Christian worldview, which leads to the third point: the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
With the State separated from God, the State no longer finds it necessary to promote biblical principles. Biblical principles have either been replaced with humanistic ideologies or integrated with modernist thought under the guise of Christianity. State-run schools have thus adopted an anti-theistic philosophy that incorporates the acceptance of perverse relationships and theoretical evolution. Van Til notes, “All forms of anti-theism reveal a common hatred for the theistic doctrine of creation” (Van Til), but this is simply the States attempt at liberation from the God who is. Sadly, they are offered no escape, for all their endeavors bring them face to face with the one with whom they must one day give an account.
Though State-run schools attempt to shed its religious tendencies (reading of the Bible and prayer), they remain unsuccessful for they cannot escape their religion/philosophy of education. Any attempt at neutrality only solidifies the fact that they are not neutral. If they were neutral, they would not be in the business of education. State schools have an agenda, they have a curriculum, therefore they have a philosophy of education; they are undoubtedly religious, but this religion is anti-theistic for it does not find its foundation in the fount of all knowledge.
The Christian, however, believes in the sovereignty of God over all things, including education. Without the God of the Bible, there can be no education, for without God, there is no knowledge. Man cannot escape the knowledge of God for this knowledge is “manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” This knowledge of God is not only written in the heavens, but can be found within the very disciplines of the sciences and arts. Regarding mathematics, Van Til writes,
The fact that two times two are four does not mean the same thing to you as a believer and to someone else as an unbeliever. When you think of two times two as four, you connect this fact with numerical law. And when you connect this fact with numerical law, you must connect numerical law with all law. The question you face, then, is whether law exists in its own right or is an expression of the will and nature of God. (Berkhof)
The unbeliever cannot account for laws in general given their worldview. Only on the Christian worldview do laws make sense; only given the sovereign God can there be laws.
Since public schools have adopted an atheistic philosophy, a religion of sorts, their attempt at education is futile for they do not begin with the God of whom all things pertain. How do they teach math without reference to the God whose nature is seen in law? How do they teach history without reference to the God of history, the God who “ordains whatsoever comes to pass,” who “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of [man’s] habitation”? If education is the ‘leading out of darkness,’ what has the State then led their students from or into if they have not started with God as their presupposition?
These are some questions the Christian educator must ask. There is also the question of ethics. Is it ethical for the Christian educator to teach in a non-Christian educational system? Apart from the rules and regulations that govern what a Christian educator can and cannot say and teach, what is the ethical basis for teaching only part of the whole? If the goal of education is to lead one out of ignorance, can that goal be accomplished in a non-Christian environment? What is our accountability before God as teachers?
It is thus impossible for a Christian educator to teach in State-run institutions because of the antithesis between both worldviews. The State has a philosophy of education. The teacher also has a worldview, which, as Gaebelein writes, “in so far as he is effective, gradually conditions the world view of the pupil” (Gaebelein). They may compliment or contradict each other, but when the day is finished, has the student been educated if we have not begun with God? Machen was right to leave Princeton though it may have been difficult to do so, for in leaving he inadvertently told Princeton that their worldview was incompatible with Biblical Christianity. If he could not see fit to teach in an incompatible environment, how can we?