In my own education and experience, Jerusalem was always stressed as imperative, yet it did not negate the significance of Athens. I don’t mean to say that these two schools were taught to me as equals. The Bible was taught as God’s Word; a filter to view the world around me. However, I was not taught that the Academy and the Church were fundamentally opposed to one another, but complimentary. As Entwistle (2004) states, “Indeed, the rallying cry of integration is that all truth is God’s truth, so that wherever and however truth is discovered, its author is God” (p. 16).
Nevertheless, this statement cannot be taken niavely or without recognition that the conflict between the Academy and the Church is apparent when one sees a distinction between allegiance to God and allegiance to man (Entwistle, 2004). For this reason, I agree with Entwistle (2004) that “secular” knowledge, meaning knowledge obtained from observation and methods outside of reading the Bible, is still knowledge of God’s truth and must be viewed from a larger, Biblical framework.
My personal religious background and my education were influencial in my perspective. I attended public and Christian schools and colleges. Specifically, in my Christian educational experiences there was much concern and care taken to teach a Biblical worldview while also teaching secular knowledge through a Biblical lens. This type of education allowed for integration of God’s “Two Books”: the Bible and the creative order (Brewer, n.d.)
References
Brewer, G. (n.d.). [Lecture 2: Defining integration: Key concepts]. Liberty University.
Entwistle, D.N. (2004). Integrative approaches to psychology and christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
