Pragmatism and the Curriculum
Posted by Vincent Cheung on October 10, 2006The following is an edited email correspondence.
In Preach the Word, you mention that we should "read the classics." Do you have a particular list of works in mind? If there is not a full list, are there some must-reads?
I do not have in mind a specific collection of works. There the context is the philosophy of education, and I make the point that if we allow pragmatic concerns to drive education, then the curriculum would become extremely narrow, since our lives are indeed very narrow relative to all the subjects and skills that we could learn. Under a pragmatic philosophy, it is hard to justify putting into the curriculum anything that the students will not need.
The student who complains that he will never need calculus is very likely correct. It is true that one might not know what vocation he will select in the future, and so he cannot know if he will need calculus. But then the only pragmatic reason for him to learn it is the mere possibility that he will need it in the future. However, the reason is weak, since the possibility is rather remote. It is certainly not worth the time and money to learn so many things that will turn out to be useless. Many people will not need physics, or biology, or the classics, or most of the things that they learn in school. Given a pragmatic philosophy, a student could skip most of the materials in high school and college, and go straight to a specialized vocational school where he is taught only what he needs to know.
This is the point that I try to raise against the "learning for doing" model proposed by Jay Adams. Like many authors I have read, he is under the popular impression that biblical "wisdom" is mainly practical rather than intellectual and abstract. This is outrageously false. Biblical wisdom deals with both the intellectual and the practical, the abstract and the concrete, but those who hold to the popular theory are blinded to the abstract aspect of it. Even though it is everywhere, they do not see it because they do not want to see it. They are trapped by the notion that Hebrew (biblical) thinking is practical, and Greek (pagan) thinking is theoretical. But this simplistic distinction is false.
On the other hand, we cannot object to the pragmatic theory in favor of another just so we can produce and justify a wider curriculum, for then we would still be driven by pragmatism, only that we have changed the intended goal from professional need to intellectual breadth. Here we notice that the pragmatic theory does not tell us which goal to select. It is chosen by some other standard or even arbitrarily. And after that, it cannot provide a rational justification for our choice.
The biblical model for a full education must be driven by the inherent value of knowledge, and not by pragmatic concerns. There is value in learning itself, in knowing itself. The most important application of this principle pertains to theological and biblical knowledge. The knowledge of God itself is valuable, a rare commodity that he gives only to his chosen ones (John 15:15), whom he calls his friends. And of course his friends would do what he says, putting into practice what he has disclosed to them. But the pragmatic philosophy would regard God's revelation as something that is only for practice and obedience — something to be used — and not a valued treasure in and of itself. Which is the higher view of God and Scripture?
So I oppose the cliche that we should not study "theology for theology's sake." Of course we must study theology for theology's sake! Theology is a systematic and coherent understanding of God's self-revelation, so that to deny its inherent value is to spit in God's face. His thoughts are wonderful, intriguing, even mesmerizing. The pragmatic perspective has neglected the inherent beauty of divine revelation and of knowledge. But of course we must implement this revelation in our lives, and we must obey his commands — I assert this in even stronger terms than the pragmatic writers. The error is in thinking that just because something is meant to be put into practice, it is therefore something that has no inherent value, or that its value is only in its intended effects.
Also, the underlying conflict of the debate on this issue is often between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. Even those authors who are most well-known for fighting against anti-intellectualism often commit the above error, that is, to argue from a pragmatic perspective, or to think that biblical wisdom is mainly practical.
Recommended