Ethics in Christian Education

Why do Christian schools exist? Perhaps we assume that we must create a learning environment where the knowledge of God is presented to students because it will not be taught elsewhere. Perhaps it is because we believe, like Solomon, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and that no knowledge is true without being undergirded by the Christian worldview. These are good motivations. However, I believe in their execution we Conservative Evangelicals have gone wrong.

We are not following the ethical standards for teaching put forth by the American Association of University Professors. Before you respond by saying that this body is a worldly organization and therefore its opinion is fundamentally flawed, let me say that their conclusions are based on a thorough understanding and conviction regarding the role of the institution for higher learning in society. Their views are informed by thousands of years of educational history keenly driven by the Christian ideals of Western culture. The university exists to seek out and disseminate knowledge for the benefit of all mankind. That purpose is a good and right one from a Christian perspective. Therefore, any ethic which serves that end should be accepted by the Christian institution so long as it does not otherwise conflict with Biblical principles.

Academic freedom is a prerequisite for the investigation of truth. The free exchange and apprehension of ideas is an essential part of building a keen mind. I believe we have fallen short in this area. Rather than fostering an environment which promotes free thought and debate, we have created a system of indoctrination. Most often we simply train students in the systematic theology of our particular denomination. Even if conflicting viewpoints are presented, the teacher's influence of authority is used (unintentionally) to create an environment wherein students must accept the "right" view or risk being labeled as irrational or heretical. Are we really so arrogant as to think we have perfect knowledge of all the subject matter with which we deal? If we teach as if that were true, we train our students to follow our example.

Much of this can be attributed (as usual) to good motives. We do not want to lead our students astray. We want to be a force for good in their lives and we do not want our teaching to result in their adopting false beliefs. We fear that if we expose them too much to the false views, they will be lured away. We take it upon ourselves to "train them in the way they should go." I believe this to be the ROOT cause of the backsliding of so many young people after they get out into the real world. Without the influence of authority to hold them onto the correct path of doctrine, they are led astray by the first free-thinking person or book they read that asks, wrestles with, and answers the tough questions we never addressed. This is fundamental to human nature because people are drawn to thoughtfulness more than they are to facts, since we ourselves know deep down that we can never know anything with 100% certainty. We are helped more by thoughts than we are by conclusions because we can assimilate them into our own unique thinking. Conclusions cannot be assimilated into the human mind without the thoughts to support them - only temporarily assumed, and people don't like basing their lives on assumptions. They always fall away eventually, and usually during hardship when they are needed most.

In our effort to take it upon ourselves to educate, we may have actually been doing harm. The fact is that a person's ability to find truth (and remain in it) rests within the purview of God's grace. We never had a say in the matter. We can only help or hinder. If we wish to help more and hinder less, it is time we stopped indoctinating and started teaching students to THINK. We must create a classroom environment where questioning, debating, exploring aberrant views, are all encouraged and supported. As teachers we must be able to argue strongly for views with which we disagree and talk about the weak points of our own views (have we always help that view?). We must withhold nothing and enlighten always. We must reward insight instead of replication. In all this we can have a pervading sense of optimism because knowledge was created by God, as well as the human capacity to grow in it. We must educate and let God do the rest.

Resonance

There was some discussion today among those of us who wave our arms in the air hoping somehow to make music go into it, relating to a sort of tonal preference which we each have for the sound we hope for. It is assumed that each of us is moved by a certain quality of sound which may differ from person-to-person. One of us may be moved by a perfectly blended homogenous sound while another may hear it and have the same response one may have to homogenized milk after tasting the real stuff.

I am inclined to think this is the right answer to the wrong question. I find myself, upon hearing music, often violating my own supposed preferences. I may love the BYU Singers recordings for their pristine intonation, but listen to a Russian choir sing with so much gusto that I don't even notice they were a bit out of tune. No... there has to be some deeper unifying factor guiding our preferences.

I think we are moved when the sound is "good." Interesting too, that we should say "moved" because we are in fact describing what happens to our souls upon hearing the regular ordered movement of air molecules known as sound. If emotion comes from hearing and hearing comes from vibration, perhaps vibration is the central issue to how we define "good"... RESONANCE. I believe what we are really longing to hear is music that resounds.

It is a physical property of sound that when harmony is in pythagorian ratio (not tempered, like the piano), there is stronger vibration. The amplitude of the sound waves is increased via the constructive interference hapening between the various partials of the tones being produced. When music is in tune it resonates more.

This can be seen even in the preference one has for particular instruments. I have found that while many people hate the oboe, it is not because the sound of the oboe is somehow outside of their tonal ideal, but rather, that most oboe players they've encountered didn't play with a techique advanced enough so as to distribute the sonic energy in a balanced way among the various overtones in their sound. I find that I cannot condemn as ugly the tone of any truly good player on any instrument.

So, the ability to move the listener is a function of each individual musician's tone having a balanced overtone series and the total combined sound of the ensemble having a balanced overtone series. This is encouraging because it means that one can, with good rehearsal technique, create a resonant ensemble sound with a group full of players who, on their own, do not produce a balanced overtone series (though it is vastly more complex). The key is intonation. So, in ensemble performance, the ability to move the listener is limited first and foremost by intonation. Once the resonance is there, emotional meaning is found in how its energy is either built or dispelled. This is done via rhythm, harmonic motion, phrase, etc.

This brings us to choirs. The instrument of the human voice is unique in that it is so closely (and completely subconsciously) affected by the inner currents of the singer's self. It has been my continual experience that when every person in a choir is truly open, vulnerable, connected, part of the community, trusting, and present, that chords tune better and in a far superior way than can be achieved by any sort of overt pressure from the conductor. I believe the captivating quality that the music of a soulful choir has is a direct function of the individual singers' vocal technique being positively influenced by their joyful spirit in such a way as enhances and balances their individual overtone series.

And this is why one cannot push buttons on the piano to magically fix intonation.

Inception

I have decided to create a blog. I intend it to be a public forum where I can publish anything and everything that might resonate with people, or provide a fresh perspective on common ideas. What is seen and read will undoubtedly be imperfect, as the thought and knowledge of any human being are continually being lengthened, widened, and deepened. This altering of dimension gives rise to new perspectives as the light of experience illumines, and thus we have a dynamic process of discovery whch is always (hopefully) moving in a positive direction. I cannot promise to be right. What I can in fact promise is to be thoughtful and insightful. It is my personal belief that that does more to increase one's chances of landing upon truth than most other traits we humans dabble in.

Yours,
rdo