THE GREAT MODERN MYTH
Part III
EDUCATION
Education, which absorbs more of our national income than any other single enterprise
except defense, is another segment of the culture that lies, thoroughly trussed-up, in the
web of the modern myth. The eagerness with which the public schools and the courts
endeavor to prevent the intrusion of the slightest element of Christian perspective or
practice into education is a sure sign of the intolerance of one religion for another.
That is what is going on here. The Supreme Court, in ruling on a conscientious
objector’s case in the 1960’s, asserted that there are other religions besides
Christianity which justify a conscientious objector’s stance and specified several,
including "secular humanism." That, of course is the religion that has a
stranglehold upon public education. But until public opinion shifts to recognize that all
men are at times religious in all that they do, it is not likely that the Court will be
consistent with its own assertions and willing to apply them in the area of education.
It is not surprising, in view of the power of the modern myth, that education should be
perceived by sensitive observers as a violent process. Violence is not exceptional in our
culture; it is endemic. What we object to on TV or in movies or books is only the tip of
the iceberg. Virtually no aspect of modern culture is untainted by violence. Education is
no exception. Nouwen identifies three characteristics of education as a violent process:
it is competitive, unilateral, and alienating. (see footnote 1) It is competitive in that,
from first grade through graduate school, grades are important. Getting the highest ones
often involves cutthroat competition. For the student who is not academically gifted,
school becomes an ego-bruising place indeed. It is unilateral in that the transfer of
knowledge moved in one direction only, from teacher to student. The reciprocity whereby
members of a body minister mutually to each other is almost entirely lacking. It is
alienating in that school is a "holding-pen" or a "fattening stall" in
which intellectual cattle are filled up before they begin the serious and significant
aspect of their lives. Life does not really begin until graduation. That each day’s
work can be a meaningful offering to God and to fellow-students, a responsible service to
others, is an unknown concept. In another context, Nouwen says that, "If any culture
has succeeded in killing the natural, spontaneous curiosity of people and dulling the
human desire to know, it is out technocratic society." (see footnote 2)
The alternative that Christian schools offer will be considered later. Here we simply
raise the question whether or not Adam’s change in Back to the Blackboard (see
footnote 3) is justified. He claims that the Christian school movement, burgeoning as it
is, has failed to produce a significant alternative to the public school down the block,
and that many Christian school teachers and principals are deeply disillusioned because
the dream they had on entering Christian education has not materialized. Perhaps the power
of the modern myth is greater among us Christians than we have realized.
THE MEDIA
The media obviously constitutes one of the most powerful educational agencies there is.
Coleman has pointed out that the media have replaced the school as the major source for
vicarious experience in children. (see footnote 4) Are the media icons in the grip of the
modern myth? One has only to remember their unfailing appeal to "science" or the
scientists as the only reliable source of genuine knowledge, from which toothpaste to use
to Carl Sagan’s "Cosmos", to realize how deeply committed they are to what
modernity sees as the truth, i.e. to the scientific method. Recent polls have been
consistent in indicating that the control of the media lies, for the very major part, with
people who profess no religious faith and rarely attend church. This means they are held
tightly by the modern myth. And editors and owners, as has been documented times without
number, determine by their power of selection what news or what interpretation of the news
will reach the reading, listening, viewing public. Their claim to neutrality can only be
understood - and so justified - in terms of their personal concept of neutrality. It is a
"neutrality" committed completely to the modern myth of scientific objectivity.
PSYCHOLOGY
The present century has seen the radical decline - one might almost say the
disappearance - of philosophical studies that attempt to build a model of total reality.
The natural sciences that occupied more and more of the academic space that was once held
by metaphysics, and the dominance of philosophy has given way to the prominence of
psychology. Van Leeuwen sums up the sort of psychology that has been in America the
following way:
" . . .the ruling paradigm for social psychology (as for almost all of American
psychology, including much clinical work) was largely borrowed from classical physics,
whose model of a material, clockwork universe passively at the mercy of discoverable
natural forces was transferred to the human subjects (although never, I soon realized, to
the investigators) of psychological research. With regard not only to theory but also to a
type of science already fast becoming outdated by Neils Bohr’s quantum postulate and
Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy . . . To all of this was added a surprisingly
unreflective faith in evolutionary theory which accounted for the excessive emphasis on
the continuity of animal and human behavior." (see footnote 5)
Clearly this is a psychology thoroughly in tune with the modern myth.
In his book, Psychology as Religion: The cult of Self-Worship, Vitz presents an
incisive criticism of American psychology in this century. He begins with four important
theorists, Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Rollo May, and proceeds to their
popularziers, all the way from Harry Emerson Fosdick and Norman Vincent Peale to Thomas
Harris (I’m OK - You’re OK) and Werner Erhard (est= Erhard Seminar
Training). He argues conclusively that self-theory or "selfism," as he calls the
popular psychology that has swept America and is practiced by the vast majority of
professional psychologists, is "a widely popular, secular, and humanistic ideology or
‘religion,’ not a branch of science." (see footnote 6) The trademark of
modern myth is evident.
Without anticipating the discussion of a Christian alternative, it is noteworthy at this
point to call attention to Vitz’s concluding paragraph:
"In another ten years millions of people will be bored with the cult of the self
and looking for a new life. The uncertainty is not the existence of this coming wave of
returning prodigals, but whether their Father’s house, the true faith, will still be
there to welcome and celebrate their return." (see footnote 7)
" . . . when the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith on the earth?"
(Luke 18:8, margin)
THE MODERN MIND
One last instance of places, where the modern myth is evident is the modern mind.
Schumacher has pointed out how naïve it is to suppose that any of us ever begins
"from scratch" and thinks about the world or himself in an uninformed manner.
"When we begin to think we can do so only because our mind is already filled with
all sorts of ideas with which to think. All through our youth and adolescence, before the
conscious and critical mind begins to act as a sort of censor and guardian at the
threshold, ideas seep into our mind, vast hosts and multitudes of them. These years are,
one might say, our Dark Ages during which we are nothing but inheritors; it is only in
later years that we can gradually learn to sort out our inheritance." (see footnote
8)
For all modern people in the modern West, including Christians, the ideas that seep in
are deeply permeated by the modern myth.
What this has led to has been described by Berger in The Homeless Mind. Discussing
the sociology of knowledge, he says that technology and bureaucracy, which are such
hallmarks of the modern world, have shaped our minds so that we think technologically and
bureaucratically even in areas of life which are characterized by neither technique nor
management. The pluralization of our social life - which has led, he says, to the
homelessness of our minds.
" . . . In everyday life the modern individual alternates between highly
discrepant and often contradictory social contexts . . . Not only are an increasing number
of individuals in a modern society uprooted from their original social milieu, but, in
addition, no succeeding milieu succeeds in becoming truly "home" either . . .
Social mobility has its correlate in cognitive and normative mobility. What is truth in
one context of the individual’s social life may be error in another. What was
considered right at one stage of the individual’s social career becomes wrong in the
next.
"The homelessness of modern social life has found its most devastating expression
in the area of religion . . . The age-old function of religion - to provide ultimate
certainty amid the exigencies of the human condition - has been severely shaken . ..
Modernity has accomplished many far-reaching transformations, but it has not fundamentally
changed the finitude, fragility and morality of the human condition. What it has
accomplished is to seriously weaken those definitions of reality that previously made that
human condition easier to bear. This has produced an anguish all its own . . ." (see
footnote 9)
Christians, whatever they may think, have not escaped the impact of this modern
"homelessness" of the mind. They, too, are modern people, and would probably be
astonished, were they able to look dispassionately at their own lives, where they find it
possible to do many things in the name of business, education, or politics, which they
would never do in their own name as Christians. We live in a tragically dualistic world,
one deeply stained by the modern myth.
Os Guinness has developed the implications of the modern sociology of knowledge in his
newest book, The Gravedigger File. His thesis is that the church - and especially
the evangelical church - is digging its own grave today because, while it objects
violently to secularism, it is so thoroughly and so unconsciously secularized already in
its thinking that it provides neither an effective barrier nor a viable alternative to the
seeping tide of modern, secular knowledge.
One of the clearest evidences of this development is seen in the almost total ignorance
the evangelical church demonstrates on the topic of the difference between Biblical and
modern knowledge. The Biblical concept of knowledge is Hebraic. For the Hebrew, the truth
had to be done to be known. The modern concept of knowing comes from Greek thought. For
the Greek, knowledge was abstract and intellectual; its consequences in action were
immaterial. The Apostle John expresses the Biblical concept when he says, "If we say
that we have fellowship with him, and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the
truth." (1 John 1:6, emphasis added). Truth is something to be done, not simply to be
said. A lie is also done, not merely said. (Revelation 22:15, ARV margin). Hence knowledge
is responsible. The Old Testament father who heard his daughter make a vow and did not
disagree with it was as bound as she to keep it. He could not plead that it was her
decision and not his. Knowing made him responsible. Today we, including Christians have,
largely lost the concept. Responsibility has become a legal instead of human matter. So,
once more, the pervasive and deadly effects of the modern myth show themselves.
A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
If this is a true picture of the great modern myth, what should we as Christians be
attempting to do about it? The myth has been an anaesthetic and modern man is sleepwalking
in his thinking and his doing. Christians ought to wake up! The admonition of Ephesians
5:14 is appropriate "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ
shall shine upon thee." Let me suggest three aspects to what it would mean to wake up
from the baleful spell that C.S. Lewis says has been upon us for at least a hundred years.
UNDERSTAND AND CRITIQUE IT
The first step in a Christian response must be to become aware of the depth and danger
of the present situation. 1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, believe not in every spirit, but
prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into
the world," Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 12:10 of the gift of the "discerning of
spirits." There will surely be among us Christians who have that gift and can give us
leadership in our awakening, but John’s words indicate that the responsibility for
proving the spirits rests upon all Christians. To the extent to which we are capable, each
of us needs to become more aware of the roots, the pervasiveness, and the power of the
modern myth.
Because dualism is so much a part of Christian life, we tend to think of discerning as
something mystical, not as something rational. John contradicts this misunderstanding when
he goes on to pose specific questions that will enable us to identify "spirits"
which are from God from those that are not. In the present situation, it is important that
we all learn to ask the pertinent questions and to identify "scientism" where it
appears in our daily experiences. For those with the time and inclination to trace its
history, a book like Michael D. Aeschliman, The Resolution of Man: C.S. Lewis and the
Case against Scientism, is an excellent resource. Even clearer regarding the idolatry
involved in the development of technology and the bureaucratic technical way of life is
Bob Goudzwaard, Capitalism and Progress. And there are many others.
What will emerge as we begin to understand the situation is that we are facing an immense
coalition of modern idolatries. Scientism, rationalism, pragmatism, capitalism, socialism,
democracy - these are only a few of the modern means for developing human culture which,
having ceased to be means and having become ends in themselves, have turned into powerful
idols that crush their devotees. Even Christians, because the development of these
idolatries has been gradual and because they belong to the "secular" sector of
life, are often unconscious of their religious nature. But if Goudzwaard is right that
"every man is serving god(s) in his life," (see footnote 10) then these are
idolatries. They are legitimate means to valid ends when used "under God," but
as ends in themselves they have become monstrous oppressors. Schlossberg, in his book, Idols
for Destruction, (see footnote 11) has developed this theme incisively and copiously.
It is a theme with which we must become better and better acquainted if we expect, even at
a minimal level, to understand the problem we face.
What Goudzwaard’s Biblical dictum says is that all of life is religion. All of life
is a confession of where our hearts are. As it was inexcusable (and ultimately culpable -
cf. The captivity of the Israelites by Assyria and then Babylon) in Old Testament times to
serve Jehovah and the idols at the same time, so it continues to be today. We can no more
expect the blessing of God when we indulge this practice then they could. Life is whole,
and it is meant to be lived to the glory of God in its entirety, not only in its
"spiritual" component. That means that the development of an ability to
recognize idolatry in modern life is a prime requisite for today’s Christians.
Editor: Al Greene
Alta Vista College
Footnotes:
1. Nouwen, Henri. Creative Ministry. Image Book, 1978. Chapter
1.
2. Nouwen, Henri. Reaching Out. Doubleday. 1975, Page 59.
3. Adams, Jay E. Back to the Blackboard. Presbyterian &
Reformed Publishing Co.,
1982.
4. Colman, James S., The Children Have Outgrown The Schools.
National Elementary
Principle, October, 1972.
5. Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Inter
Varsity Press. 1982, p.
10-11.
6. Vitz, Paul C. Psychology as Religion: The Cult of
Self-Worship. Eerdmans,
1977, p. 37.
7. "ibid," p. 135.
8. Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful. Harper, 1973, p. 75.
9. Berger, Peter. The Homeless Mind. Vintage Books, 1974. P.
184-185.
10. Goudzwaard, Bob. Aid for the Overdeveloped West, p. 14
11. Schlossberg, Herbert. Idols for Destruction. Nelson, 1983.
