Institute for Christian Teaching
Education Department of Seventh-day Adventists
The Process of Deliberate Teacher Implementation
Raquel Bouvet de Korniejczuk
River Plate University
Entre Rios, Argentina
Prepared for the
International Faith and Learning Seminar
Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.
130-93 Institute for Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
The educational system of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is founded upon a God-centered worldview, which basically is shared with other Christian denominations. However, some areas of SDA thought are unique and these mark some distinctiveness which set "the reason to be" of the SDA educational system. If this were not so, Adventists could send their children to other Christian schools without having their SDA worldview affected. The Philosophy of education sets the basis for the purpose of SDA education.
The purpose of Seventh-day Adventist education is to strive toward this ideal by developing the whole person, and to nurture a redemptive relationship between each student and the divine. To this end, the home, church, and school must work cooperatively to provide an environment where students may choose to enter into a relationship with the Redeemer of the world. (Stepanske, 1992)
The SDA worldview is based on biblical principles which determine the view of reality, the source of truth, and the criteria for beauty. It becomes operative in the school as teachers integrate these principles into practice at the classroom level and promote the integration in the students' minds and lives.
Integration often occurs spontaneously only as a part of the teachers' hidden curriculum. Teachers' modeling and propitious but sporadic relations between subject matter and spiritual issues are not sufficient to reach the desired integration.
What Is Integration?
The phrase "integration of faith and learning" is widely used in religious educational circles. Sometimes it is used as a slogan, and then its meaning tends to be distorted or diffused. In most cases, the reader is left alone to unpack the semantic implications. Curriculum materials, college catalogues, and also internal policy documents use the phrase but do not explain it. Probably those who practice integration of faith and learning believe that the Christian worldview makes a special contribution to learning because it contributes to the overall framework or perspective in which learning takes place (Bradley, 1993).
Sometimes integration is defined by contrast: what it is and what it is not (cf. Heie & Wolfe, 1987). Wolfe says that "genuine integration occurs when an assumption or concern can be shown to be internally shared by [or is integral to] both the Judaeo-Christian vision and an academic discipline" (p. 5). He notes that when Christian beliefs are related in some way to ideas in academic disciplines, but in a way that lacks an integral relation, a pseudo integration results. As a conclusion, Wolfe assures that "integration is the process by which two often very different visions are related in an interesting and informative way on the basis of one or more shared presuppositions" (p. 5).
Rasi (1993) defines integration of faith and learning in a more operative way. He says that it is
A deliberate and systematic process of approaching the entire educational enterprise from a biblical perspective. Its aim is to ensure that students under the influence of Christian teachers and by the time they leave school will have internalized biblical values and a view of knowledge, life, and destiny that is Christ-centered, service-oriented and kingdom-directed. (p. 10)
Literature on the importance of integrating faith and learning is abundant. Gaebelain (1968) is The Pattern of God's Truth presents as a whole and Christianity as a world and view of life. His thoughts were fostered by Holmes in All Truth Is God's Truth (1977) and in The Idea of a Christian College (1975). In the latter, Holmes presents a rationale for the difference between a secular and Christian educational institution. Both books give philosophical viewpoints on what it means to integrate faith and learning. But no comprehensive model addresses the question: "What does integration of faith and learning actually man in operational terms?" or "How can teachers help students to integrate faith and learning?" Describing what constitutes integration of faith and learning in terms of its goals offers little help with the task of implementation. It could be useful to explore how it will look in actual practice in the classroom, in clear and operational terms.
This paper attempts to provide an organizational model for the teachers' process of deliberate integration of faith and learning based on philosophical and educational models and to give some suggestions on possible ways to move in the integration of faith and learning process.
The theoretical framework for this essay is based on the Concept-Based Adoption Model of Hord and others (1987) concerning the educational aspect, and Holmes' model (1975) concerning the philosophical aspect of integrating faith and learning.
A growing body of literature in education relates to the process teachers go through in implementing educational ideas. Several models identify particular areas of difficulty in implementation and developing of strategies to deal with these difficulties. Miller and Seller (1985) survey three models: (1) The Innovations Profile Model, developed by Leihwood. This model allows teacher and curriculum workers to develop a profile of obstacles for change, so that teachers can overcome these obstacles. (2) The TORI model by Gibb, which is rooted in the transformation position and is most appropriate to addressing the implementation of programs. This model focuses on personal and social change. (3) The Concern-Based Model (CBAM) developed by Hall et al. and Loucks. It identifies the various levels of a teacher's concern about an innovation and how the teacher is using the innovation in the classroom. This model is used as a basis of my new proposal.
Taking Charge of Change (Hord et al., 1987) presents how schools might go about improving successfully. The authors verified a number of assumptions about change that were the basis of a model upon which the research was founded: the Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). The conclusions are:
1. Change is a process, not an event.
2. Change is accomplished by individuals.
3. Change is a highly personal experience.
4. Change involves developmental growth.
5. Change is best understood in operational terms.
6. The focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and the context.
Because CBAM is a client-centered model, it can identify the special needs of individual users and enable the change facilitator to provide vital assistance through appropriate actions. This approach helps to maximize the prospects for successful school improvement projects while minimizing the innovation-related frustrations of individuals.
Holmes (1975, 1977) provided some philosophical bases for identifying levels of integration of faith into educational practice. In The Idea of a Christian College (1975), and All Truth is God's Truth (1977) Holmes presents the way teachers in a Christian school generally approach integration. According to Holmes' ideas, systematized somewhat by Akers (1977), four teaching models are common in integrating faith and learning: (1) complete disjunction, (2) injunction, (3) conjunction, (4) integration or fusion.
Complete disjunction occurs when the teachers keeps worlds of faith and learning apart. In this case, students get a distorted view of reality. If the teacher presents differences between the world of learning and the world of faith, or if there is any correspondence or dialogue between them, the injunction model is used. However, the two worlds are still separate. The conjunction model occurs when the teacher uses natural touching points between religion and the subject, but the fusion is only partial, incomplete. Fusion is accomplished when the teacher offers one unified reality, and students get it in logical totality.
This set of models could be conceived of as a continuum between two extreme poles: complete disjunction and complete fusion. This concept is illustrated graphically as follows:
complete disjunction complete fusion
Both poles of the continuum are theoretical. Complete disjunction is impossible because the teacher's presentation of each subject matter has an underlying religious belief (Clouser, 1991). Complete fusion is too idealistic because human beings are incapable of seeing the wholeness of the truth and the never-ending process of education (cf. White, 1903).
A description of both extremes of the integration of faith and learning process may clarify the concepts. The absence of integration or complete disjunction is characterized by:
1. Loss of focus in truth. Instead of focus in the truth, the center of education is
hedonistic and pragmatic. For instance, one may choose a particular profession because of the economic advantages regardless of vocational interest. Another main concern of the educational enterprise is development of professional skills. A training per se emphasizes only vocational skills, personal development, and unstructured "learning experiences" at the expense of truth. A dichotomy exists between the sacred and secular. Under this model, the teacher presents the subject matter divorced from faith.
2. Loss of universality of truth. Truth is relative. Truth changes from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture. Truth is also subjective; everyone has his/her own truth.
3. Loss of unity of truth. Disjunction limits the quest of truth to the empirical methods of the natural sciences. Information is learned in a disjointed way: more and more about less and less. Specialization is the goal of each professional.
The opposite ideal, total integration, aims to emphasize truth as fully as possible and is characterized by:
1. Focus on truth. The worldview includes the biblical conception of nature, man, and history. The subject is just another disclosure of God. Teachers and students examine together the basic presuppositions of the textbook presentations, class contributions, and prevalent ideologies, testing them by biblical principles to see whether they are Christian and can be accepted.
2. Truth is universal. Truth includes all subjects and pervades all disciplines. The Christian teacher cannot hide the truth because the truth permeates all the thoughts and activities the teacher develops in and outside the classroom.
3. Truth as unity. All truth is God's truth. There is no dichotomy between sacred and secular. Christian teachers understand and present to students the wholeness of life. The Bible is incorporated into the curriculum as a unifying vision. The purpose of any educational activity is to learn to think as a Christian about science, art, and human society. Though God may have a fully comprehensive and unified view of reality, we human beings do not. Even our hermeneutics and theological methodologies are subject to the distortion and limitations of human interpretation and construction.
Of Integration of Faith and Learning
I would like to suggest an operational paradigm of integration of faith and learning based upon the Hall/Hord Concern-based Model and upon the philosophical model of faith and learning proposed by Holmes.
The model is structured upon seven levels of implementation of deliberate integration of faith and learning. This is not a linear model. Although it represents stages of a teacher's concern in the deliberate implementation of integrating faith into subject matter, it is not a sequential design of hierarchical stages.
Level 0: Non use. Level 0 teachers are those who are not aware of the possible underlying worldviews of the subject(s) they teach. They are not even aware that they make no effort nor that they have no intention of integrating the Christian worldview into academic discipline. Teachers in this level may think that the subject they teach is not related to religion, or that if there is a relation, integration of faith and learning is not he answer to accomplishing the mission of SDA schools.
Level 1: Orientation. Level 1 teachers are those who are not implementing systematically their faith into the subject. They are interested in doing it, however. Teachers in this level of concern have acquired or are in the process of acquiring information on how to relate the subject matter they teach with Christian beliefs. They are aware that the SDA worldview should give the perspective of the subject matter, but they do not know how to implement it in their classes. I include in this level the teachers who are thinking of planning to introduce systematically integration of faith and learning in the future. Teachers who think that integration of faith and learning cannot be applied to all levels of education, subjects, or topics are also included in this category.
Level 2: Preparation. Level 2 stage include those teachers who spontaneously but sporadically correlate the Christian beliefs and values with the subject(s) they teach, but do not yet incorporate this integration in the curriculum. They plan to do it in a definite time and are taking the necessary steps to do so.
Level 3: Irregular use. Level 3 teachers are conscious of the Christian worldview. They comprehend what is the ideal approach of their subject matter from the Christian perspective, but some obstacles, namely, time, management, resources, etc., impede the effort to implement the integration of faith and learning systematically. Therefore integration of faith and learning is irregular and fragmented.
Another possibility in level 3 is that the relation is only superficial. Teachers use biblical themes or topics to relate with the subject matter without meaning, such as using the Proverbs of Solomon to teach a particular grammar lesson.
In this stage, the teacher's concern with integration is centered on what he/she can say (preach) rather than on the impact on the students.
Level 4: Routine. Teachers in level 4 already have incorporated their beliefs systematically into their subject matter. The syllabus and objectives show the integration in a variety of ways: content, values methodologies, etc. Although these teachers recognize that some things can be improved, they are comfortable with the way they teach and have no plans for change. For them, integration of faith and learning is something the teacher needs to do regardless of the students' reaction.
Level 5: Refinement. At level 5, a systematic and ongoing use of integration of faith and learning is established, but the teachers shift the focus of integration from the teacher to the students. Such teachers believe that the teacher is the booster in the process, but the integration should take place in the students' minds and lives. Therefore, these teachers vary the strategies of integration according to the student impact.
Level 6: Dynamic integration. Level 6 teachers not only incorporate Christian faith systematically into their subject, but they are concerned with the students' integration and talk with colleagues on ways to improve integration of faith and learning. This regular collegiate activity in integration of faith and learning has the purpose of provoking a collective and holistic impact on students. The whole school (or at least a group of teachers) provides a coherent Christian worldview and emphasizes the student response.
Table 1 summarizes the adaptation of the Concern-Based Model and the operational characteristics of each level. It also shows a correlation with Holmes' model of integration of faith and learning.
Of Integration of Faith and Learning
I would like to suggest some ideas that can help teachers move toward deeper
stages of integration of faith and learning. The suggestions are organized in four groups: (1) Awareness of worldview and philosophies, and the relationship among philosophy, subject matter, and the mission of Christian education; (2) perception and analysis of worldviews and the search for one's own worldview; (3) models of integration for the subject matter; and (4) Design and implementation of integrative curriculum.
Table 1. Level of Deliberate Teacher Implementation of Integration of Faith and Learning
Level of Use
Level 0: Non use
Or non use
· Teacher has little or no knowledge of IFL.
· Teacher is doing nothing toward becoming involved in IFL.
· Teacher has no intention to become involved in IFL.
· Teacher is not convinced that IFL is the answer to accomplish the mission of SDA schools.
· Teacher thinks that the subject he/she teaches is not related to faith (religion).
Level 1: Orientation
Non use but some interest
· Teacher has acquired or is acquiring information of IFL, and/or has explored its value orientation and what it will require.
· Teacher is aware that he/she should incorporate SDA faith into learning.
· Teacher does not know how to find and implement a Christian worldview in his/her class.
· Teacher thinks that may IFL be a worthwhile thing to do it in the future.
· Teacher thinks that IFL can be implemented in some but not all levels or subjects or topics.
· Teacher is definitively taking the initiative to learn more about IFL.
· Teacher is planning to implement in the future, but has no established time to begin its use.
Level 2: preparation
Makes a decision
To implement IFL
· Teacher is preparing to begin IFL for first time.
· Teacher plans to begin using IFL at a definite time.
· Teacher is taking steps to get ready to use IFL.
Level 3: Irregular use
· Teacher attempts IFL but the problem is management, time, resources, etc.
· Teacher is aware of how IFL should be used ideally, but is not able to use it that way yet.
· IFL is meeting more teacher's needs or concerns than students' needs.
· It is a superficial use. Use of biblical themes or topics without coherence and meaningfulness.
· Occasional IFL is tried.
Level 4: Routine
· There is a stabilized use of IFL, but no changes are made for ongoing use. No preparation is made to improve IFL.
· Syllabus and objectives show IFL in some themes.
· Teacher recognizes that some things can be improved but he/she does not plan to do it. Teacher makes only minor adjustments in patterns of use.
· Teacher has no coherent plan for presenting the Christian worldview. Instead, random prayers and homilies are injected. IFL is based on teacher's talking rather than student response.
· No progress is been made in the IFL process.
Level 5: Refinement
· Teacher varies the implementation of IFL to increase impact on students.
· Teacher can describe changes that he/she had made in the last months, and what he/she has planned to do in a short term.
· Changes of strategies and themes in IFL are made because of the benefits to students.
Level 6: Dynamic
· Teacher talks with colleagues on ways to improve IFL. Regular collaboration occurs between two or more teachers. The collegiate activity in IFL has the purpose of provoking a collective impact on students.
· Teacher feels that he/she is experiencing a growing capacity to make a difference in the lives of his/her students. Teacher thinks that IFL and teaming provides the best possible vehicle for doing that.
· The whole school (or at least a group of teachers) provides a coherent Christian worldview and emphasizes the student response.
Awareness of worldviews and philosophies, and the relationship among philosophy, subject matter and the mission of Christian education
Within the Western civilization it is generally understood that there is no direct relation among religion, philosophy, and science. After analyzing several American high-school textbooks during a session in the annual conference of the Association for Curriculum and Supervision held in March 1993, Haynes & Nord presented their findings. Because religion was systematically absent textbooks, they conclude religion has nothing to do with the sciences and philosophy.
Some books recognize the lack of a relation between religion and scientific or philosophical activities and show more clearly the lost relationship. Besides the classic books on integration of faith and learning widely known by Christian educators (i.e., Blamires, 1978, 1988; Gaebelain, 1968; Holmes, 1975, 1977; Walsh & Middleton, 1984), The Myth of Religious Neutrality (Clouser, 1991) explains that scientific and philosophical theories cannot help but have religious presuppositions that control and regulate them. Clouser argues that there is a distinctly biblical perspective for theorizing that ought to be adopted by those who believe in God. He reviews how religion influences the development of theories and demonstrates how the theories, particularly for math, physics, and psychology, differ due to differences in religious beliefs.
Knight (1989a, 1989b) presents a clear overview of the main philosophical currents and their influence in education. He also provides a critique of the current philosophical viewpoints from the Christian perspective and encourages the reader to find his/her own viewpoint based on Scripture.
Another introduction to different worldview is presented by Sire (1988). He notes that teachers need to be aware that they can never get out of a philosophical position. If they are not educating from a Christian perspective, they are educating from a non-Christian perspective. Whether they recognize it or not, it is impossible to be religiously neutral. "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth" (Luke 11:23).
Perception and Analysis of Worldviews
Detecting others' presupposition is vitally important. It puts one's own worldview to the test and gives one a contact with the mind and heart of those read and listened to. Knight's books (1988a & b) provide some interpretation from a Christian viewpoint of the main philosophical currents. Sire (1978) presents insightful clues on how to read so that the worldview of the author becomes obvious. This book considers how to read different texts from a Christian perspective and how to know when and what to read. It provides practical ideas on how to detect what lies behind what the author says.
Teachers need a deep understanding of the subject of the subject matter and the underlying philosophies so they are able to make interrelationships. The appendix below provides some basic Christian assumptions for several academic subjects.
Models of Integration for the Subject Matter
An exemplary model of integration appears in Psychology and Christianity:
Integrative Readings, a book edited by J. Roland Fleck and John D. Carter (1981). In this
the editors suggest a model of integration of psychology and Christianity.
Their model of integration considers theories and data of psychology and the zones of possible conflict. It considers three aspects: (1) integration as a way to thinking, (2) the relation between two disciplines, and (3) integration as a way of living.
As a way of thinking, integration is the search for the underlying conceptual framework which is common to both psychology and Christianity. (p. 20)
The second aspect of integration as a model deals with the disciplines . . . Each has its respective method of study, its data to be analyzed, and its resulting content. Hence, the disciplines are not fused or reduced to one another. Rather at this level of thinking psychologically about human nature, the integrationist thinks psychologically about Christianity. The reverse is also true, the integrationist also thinks Christianity about psychology. (p. 20)
The third aspect of integration as a model is lived experience. While psychology and Christian theology may be conceived of as separate disciplines, psychology as the study of human nature and experience, they both converge as lived experience . . . Also both psychology and Christianity focus on personal human process and experience as primary whether those processes and experiences are reflected or unreflected, though often different aspects of these experiences are examined by each. (p. 21)
The editors recognize that all three aspects of the integrative model are necessary and form a functional whole. In chapter 5 of the book, Carter analyzes four secular and sacred models by which psychologists have attempted to relate psychology to religion, and in chapter 6 Carter and Mohline present a proposal on the nature and scope of integration.
Design and Implementation of Integrative Curriculum
Creation and implementation of integrative curriculum is the responsibility not only of teachers but also of educational administrators and the educational support system. Therefore, the following suggestions are related to these three groups.
Teachers. An integrative curriculum may imply a Christian reconstruction of knowledge, which is not simple matter. It requires hard work for the teacher, as well a humble heart and the work of the Holy Spirit. To accomplish this task, the teacher needs to be able to find the Christian perspective to hold the entire program together and to give each and every lesson its place within the overall framework, to meet the objectives. The teachers needs to utilize Christian principles of selection to make sure that nothing of prime importance is missing, and that he/she is making the best possible use of the limited time available.
Educational administrators. Administrators should select Christian teachers as efficient models for students, those who will provide a Christian perspective of the knowledge. Administrators also can offer in-service training to teachers not well acquainted with Christian thinking. Colleges that offer teacher education should provide an Integration of Faith and Learning course to train teachers how to develop a Christian perspective about the subjects. Schools and colleges should incorporate philosophical issues in the core curriculum according to each level.
The support system. The Church as a support system is the custodian of Christian education offered in their institutions. Therefore the Church leaders are responsible to design a consistent educational plan, and provides the necessary opportunities and resources for a continuing development of a Christian curriculum.
However, none of these three agents mentioned above can work alone in this task. A cooperative effort must exist among teachers, and administrators with the Church as a support system.
I suggest that for elementary and secondary education it would be useful to have integrative curriculum frameworks that include a statement which articulates SDA philosophy and provides direction to the curriculum, objectives, essential learning for SDA schools, student outcomes expected at each teaching area or level, and values, issues, and methodologies relevant to the subject (see Brantley, 1993). This document could be prepared at the Division or Union level of the SDA Department of Education by a committee of educational leaders, consultants in curriculum and integration of faith and learning, and teachers. A serious attempt to address the process of integrating Christian values in a more systematic way through a set of curriculum frameworks was made by the South Pacific Division Education Department (Hill, 1992).
But a framework only provides general ideas upon which a curriculum can be organized. Development of curriculum guides may be necessary to promote the constant process of integration. Although curriculum guides could be promoted by any level of the educational organization, teachers must have a clear voice in the development and implementation because they will be the users. Thus, the curriculum guide will be an expansion of the framework, a "ready to use" resource.
The tentative components of a curriculum guide could be the following:
1. Preface and/or Introduction that explains the purpose of the documents, the audience, and how the document is to be used.
3. Goals for the subject and suggested objectives for units.
4. Content that provides scope and sequence for each unit or chapter and allows for different levels of ability, with suggestions of supplementary content.
5. Suggestions of textbooks, instructional aids, and other resource materials available for each unit.
6. Suggestions of methodologies and teaching techniques, student learning activities and experiences, and procedures for cooperative learning, individualized instruction, and independent study appropriate for each unit.
7. Ideas for evaluation which can include possible ways of evaluating student progress and achievement.
The development of curriculum materials should begin with the identification of a specific curricular need. After the identification of needs, resources and constraints should be distinguished. The design and implementation is a never-ending process that begins with an initial design and a pilot implementation and continues its improvement with constant revisions as a result evaluations.
In this process of design and implementation of an integrative curriculum it is vital that teachers work in teams. Collegiate activity encourages improvement, allows sharing of ideas, permits more experienced teachers to be the mentors of new ones, and allows everyone to take advantage of the process.
At this point, the stress of the integration remains with the teachers. But teachers are only the interpreters of the Christian worldview. Ultimately, the integration must happen in the students' minds and lives. Students should be conscious of the necessity of developing their independent thinking, identifying and criticizing secular positions, and learning to think with a Christian mind. They are responsible for their decisions and viewpoints as soon as they can think independently. Teachers must not forget that.
Christian educators are concerned with the relation between religious belief and academic discipline. Forty-five percent of the North American SDA high-school teachers say they are interested in learning to better implement spiritual concepts into the curriculum (Brantley, 1993). An operational description of the process of integration may help teachers find where they are in the growing process, and find the means to improve the integration. Educational leaders are better able to assess the process of integration in teachers and schools. Once they determine the barriers that inhibit the process of integration of faith and learning, they can devise courses of action.
Christian education is a ministry that begins in this earth and will continue in the new earth. This is an exciting, never-finished process. It involves feeling toward God and obedience by love to His law, it shapes the intelligence by studying His word and the natural world He has created, and it cultivates the body to keep physical strength an open channel to communicate with God, the source of all truth.
Akers, G. H. (1977). The measure of a school. Journal of Adventist Education, 40(2), 7-9, 43-45.
Badley, Ken (1993). Integral learning and faith and learning integration. Unpublished manuscript.
Blamires, H. (1978). The Christian mind: How should a Christian think? Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
Blamires, H. (1988). Recovering the Christian mind: Meeting the challenge of secularism. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Brantley, Paul S. (1993). Profile '93. Preliminary Report. A Curriculum Impact Study of North American Division Seventy-day Adventist Schools. Unpublished manuscript, Andrews University.
Clouser, R. A. (1991). The myth of religious neutrality: An essay on the hidden role of religious belief in theories. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Flerck, J. R., & Carter, J. D. (Eds.). (1981). Psychology and Christianity: Integrative reading. Nashville, TN: Abington.
Gaebelain, F. E. (1968). The pattern of God's truth: Problems of integration in Christian education. Chicago: Moody Press.
Haynes, C. & Nord, W. (1993). The Hidden Moral (and Religious) Assumptions that Shape the Curriculum. Association for Curriculum and Supervision.
Heie H. & Wolfe, D. (Eds.). (1987). The Reality of Christian Learning. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press.
Holmes, A. F. (1975). The idea of a Christian college. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
_____. (1977). All truth is God's truth. Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans.
Hord, S. M. et al. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Knight, G. R. (1989a). Issues and alternatives in educational philosophy. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
_____. (1989b). Philosophy and education: An introduction in Christian perspective. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Rasi, H. M. (1993). Worldviews, contemporary culture and Adventist education. Unpublished paper.
Sire, J. W. (1978). The joy of reading. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press.
_____. (1988). The universe next door. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
_____. (1990). Discipleship of the mind: Learning to love God in the ways we think. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Stepanske, Jeanete (1992). Seventh-day Adventist Education: A statement of philosophy and purpose. This statement was constructed by EDCI 552 class at Andrews University to illustrate possible formats for NADCC consideration. A variety of Seventh-day Adventist philosophical statements were used as resources including the NAD Codebook and the official 1952 Statement of SDA Philosophy and objectives.
Walsh, B. J., & Middleton, J. R. (1984). The transforming vision: Shaping a Christian world view. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
White, E. (1903). Education. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.
Wolfe, D. L. (1987). The line of demarcation between integration and pseudointegration. In H. Heie and D. L. Wolfe (Eds.), The reality of Christian learning. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press. (pp. 3-11).
Some basic assumptions for academic subjects
· Art is from God and is given to human beings to help them discover their identity, their worth, and their creative potential. Artistic sensitivity is heightened as we love God and acknowledge Him.
· The environment reflects some of the beauty of its original creation and the ugliness caused by sin.
· Art is influenced by moral and religious principles, and it relates our perceptions of our environment to these principles.
· Bible provides coherence for all school subjects.
· Bible study not only addresses Adventist doctrinal beliefs, but it relates to lifestyle issues, ethical decision making, interpersonal relationships, reasons for faith, and personal religious experience.
· The central focus of Bible teaching is the development of relationships. The most important one is with God.
· The test of effectiveness of Bible teaching is in the lifestyle that the Bible student adopts. Bible teaching encourages a sound of application of biblical principles in one's relationships and life.
· God is the creator and owner of all matter.
· How Christians view God and His relationship to humans carries implications for the way Christians think the commercial world should operate.
· An important principle of Scripture for the commercial world is justice, which is expressed partly in good stewardship of resources, in the value of individuals, and in integrity.
· The ability to use language is God-given.
· Growth in language is integral to personal development and to realizing God-given individuality and humanity.
· Language enables us to know God and communicate our understanding of Him; explore and expand our private and public worlds; to organize our experience; and to form, recognize and reveal our values.
· The study of the natural environment assumes the existence of a Creator-God who has created all existing matter. Through studying this creation students are taught to appreciate not only its aesthetic beauty but also the need to live in harmony with the Creator's laws.
· The study of the environment should lead to a heightened awareness of their responsibilities in caring for their created environment. The environment has been partially destroyed because of the alienation of man and nature after sin entered the earth.
· Geography study emphasizes the importance of the concepts of restoration and stewardship.
· God intends music to be one means of fostering spiritual development. Musical appreciation and expression help comprise the worship and faith that draw us to Him.
· Music helps us develop abilities such as creativity, communication, and emotional expression.
· Music education forms an indispensable part of our aesthetic development.
· It is a gift from God, designed to give us balance, to uplift us, and to lead us to Him.
· Everywhere in nature are evidences of mathematical relationships. These are shown in ideas of number, form, design and symmetry, and in the constant laws governing the existence and harmonious working of all things. Through the study of these laws, ideas, and processes, mathematics can reveal to students some of God's creative attributes.
· When students learn mathematical processes, axioms, and laws, they may be enable to more clearly identify God's design and handiwork in nature. It shows Him to be a God of system, order, and accuracy. He can be depended upon. His logic is certain. By thinking in mathematical terms, we are actually thinking God's thought after Him.
· Man was originally created in God's image, but this image has been marred by sin. Physical education focuses on the restoration of God's image in mankind through emphasizing a group of health-related concepts.
· Our bodies are temples of God where the Holy Spirit dwells. As we build health and its attendant positive attitudes, this process influences both our quality and worldview, and God's image becomes strengthened in us.
· Through a healthy lifestyle and the knowledge of health and fitness, we can become positive models who glorify God and make Him more real to others.
· Science is the continuing search for understanding about ourselves and our changing physical and biological environment. Therefore, rightly interpreted and understood, it must be consistent with ultimate truth, which is embodied in God and glimpsed by man.
· Science provides the student with an opportunity to explore and attempt to comprehend the order and perfection of the original creation.
· Science provides scope for the utilization of man's logical thought and creativity in investigating God's creation and the laws by which it is governed and maintained.
· God is the central reality that gives meaning to all knowledge.
· There is a conflict between the forces of good and evil in the world; this conflict is reflected in changes to the nature and social environment.
These Christian assumptions were taken from Gaebelain, Frank (1968) and from the South Pacific Division Curriculum Frameworks (1991).