Church and Education: A Productive Struggle of Eternal Worth
by KRISTINE K. SMITH, ED.D.
Assistant Principal, Hardin County Middle School
Dr. Smith currently serves as Assistant Principal at Hardin County Middle School. Kris has rich teaching and leadership experience in both public and private education sectors, and stays active professionally with her writing and presenting.
“Productive struggle” is a relatively common pedagogical term. It is used to describe the relationship between cognitive dissonance and cognitive development which occurs when students wrestle with new ideas. Teachers engage students by intentionally interjecting productive struggles into lessons. The concept of putting more effort into something in order to increase its effect is neither new, nor untested. According to Newton’s third law of motion, “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” In education, the notion is for students to engage with ideas so their mental push and pull will, hopefully, result in a deeper lodging of understanding and remembrance. Thus it is that through the creation of a frictional rub—where answers are sought rather than supplied—cognitive grappling leads to cognitive growth.
Since encountering challenge just short of frustration seems pivotal for individual learning, it might be wise to ask if such productive struggles could also be paramount for organizational growth and learning. For example, could tension between the Church and education actually result in each body moving further—because of a push from the other “opposing” force? For the last several decades in the United States, there has been a disconnect between the Church’s involvement with public education and education’s involvement with the Church. Damage from an ideological conflict involving a strict interpretation of the Religion Clause of the First Amendment may not only have had a devastating impact upon Church and education in general, but the resulting friction might also have impeded each one’s missional and purposeful objective.
But what if the struggle became productive? What if each institution (Church and education) not only benefited, but balanced the other? While Newton identified the significance of effort, Einstein identified the necessity of equivalence. Upon uncovering a relationship between matter and energy, Einstein proposed the formula E=mc2. Presented as an equation, Einstein’s theory of relativity depicts the need for balance between terms. What if the relationship between Church and education were also interchangeable and equalizing? For hypothetical purposes, what if a formula could be created—and tested—to determine whether the Church could be balanced by activity in education and missions and, likewise, whether education and missions could be balanced by activity in the Church. Such a formula might look like this: C=em2, in which C represents the Church, e signifies education, and m2 denotes ministry through missions (through Church and in education).
Before turning to the application of C=em2, current challenges within the Church, education, and missions need clarification. Recognizing that preexisting struggles may be transformed into productive struggles, institutional needs on both sides of this relational equation deserve an examination.
Challenges for the Church
Prior to identifying challenges taking place “within” the Church, an evident struggle appears by merely looking “for” the Church. Simply put, the gathering body of the Church is dwindling. According to George Barna, weekly church attendance dropped 36% between 1993 and 2020, and Americans identifying as Christians plunged from 45% in 2000 to 25% in 2020 (Barna, 2020). While statistics indicate an overall decline in church attendance, the greatest decline appears in younger generations. In his book, The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church, McNeal (2003) states, “The further down you go in the generational food chain, the lower the percentage each succeeding generation reports going to church” (p. 3). In his study, McNeal identified generational groups as Builders (those born before 1946), Boomers (born between 1946 – 1964), Busters (born between 1965 – 1976), and Bridgers (born between 1976 – 1994). When it came to church attendance, 52% of Boomers attended weekly, while only 36% of Bridgers reported weekly attendance (McNeal, 2003). An even more dramatic decline emerged among those identifying as “born again” believers where the percentage dropped from 65% of Builders, to 35% of Boomers, to 15% of Busters, to 4% of Bridgers.
Whether a decline in church attendance is the cause or the effect of changing family structures, Kinnaman’s (2011) research traced a change in family dynamics back to the 1960s. With the generations following the Baby Boomers, a pattern of disengagement emerged in which children became less likely to model the lifestyles of their parents. Millennial (“Bridgers” named above) statistics reflect this separation of family and faith in that 35% of Millennials have no church affiliation, and 60% have no ties with Christianity (Pew Research Center, 2015). Amid this generational decline, some questions arise: What if this pattern doesn’t change? What if religious ties continue to weaken with each generation? If the younger generations “have such a shallow understanding of Christianity and the Bible, [how will] their roots of faith survive the weather systems of real life?” (Kinnaman, 2011, pp. 116–117).
Along with declining church attendance and faith adherence come the challenges of detached truth and disconnected values. If church attendance is down, then so too is the acquaintance with truth; if the roots of faith become shallow, then so too does the integration of faith into daily living. Into this void, a secular moral framework will be (is being) constructed that will “elevate preferences and feelings over facts and truth” (Murray, 2018, p. 33). These mindsets not only confront the Church, they are in the front rows of the Church.
The days of the Puritan ideal, in which people wanted the freedom to live virtuously, have deteriorated into the days of post-modernism, in which people evidently want the freedom to live vilely, boldly proclaiming their rights rather than God’s righteousness (Dreher, 2020). As a result, moral confusion deposes moral clarity and “objective truth [becomes] the vice of the day” (Murray, 2018, p. 62). But even in the midst of these trials, the Church stands as the bride of Christ; her assignment has not altered and her mission will not fail. Her assignment is to expand God’s earthly kingdom while awaiting the Bridegroom’s return. If, however, the formula C=em2 holds true, then the Church may find support for its kingdom work on the other side of the equation.
Challenges for Education
The Church isn’t the only institution facing challenges; education is struggling to make a stand in an ever-changing society as well. The rising fog of apathy, disconnect, and secular thought has permeated the schoolhouse as well as the church house. For a nation whose foundation was built by those who understood the value and the cost of freedom, the need for an educated republic was once recognized as vital for the sustainment of such liberties. So intertwined were education and liberties, that the establishment of schools preceded the establishment of a nation. As early as 1642, the Massachusetts Bay Colony (in what was termed the ”Old Deluder Satan Act”) required children be taught to read and write—lest they forget the law of their God and the legacy of their endeavor. In 1787, wording recorded in the Northwest Ordinance underscored America’s initial bond between government and education: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” (Fraser, 2014, p. 19).
Not coincidentally, the shifts affecting the Church in the 1960s jarred education as well. During the 1960s, prayer and Scripture reading in public schools were deemed “unconstitutional” and thus banned in public education (Pew Research Center, 2019). When these Scriptural pillars (prayer and Scripture) were removed, the connective biblical beliefs held by colonial Americans—binding truth with knowledge—were replaced with personal preferences, favoring man’s inclination over God’s design. When morality was removed from its Biblical context, its direction changed along with its derivation. No longer tied to the anchor of God’s word, morals became descriptors of an earthly citizenship (honesty, self-restraint, perseverance) rather than directors toward an eternal citizenship (sinfulness, forgiveness, redemption). At a time when the younger generation began departing from their parent’s values, and disengaging from church attendance, educational morals collapsed as well. Over time, and across three generations (Gen X/Busters, Millennial/Bridgers, Gen Z), a decrease in Biblical instruction at home and at school led to a values void—which did not stay vacant for long (Barna, 2017; Kinnaman, 2011).
With the removal of prayer and Biblical truths from public education, not only did the nature of education change, but so too did the narrative of education. Devoid of any reference to God, man could now create his own story…and even rewrite mankind’s story. An eerily descriptive quote from Orwell’s 1984 rings true: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past” (Dreher, 2020, p.111). From a Christian point of view, history is the documentation of God’s involvement in the lives of mankind—history is “His story.” However, when educational materials replaced God’s pure narrative with man’s perceived narrative, the adjusted point of view led to an altered point of value. The revised storyline exchanged common goals for common gods and public service with self-service; as a result, public education no longer served the public—it created a public (Postman, 1995).
According to Dreher (2020), “a society’s values are carried in the stories it chooses to tell about itself and in the people it wishes to honor” (p. 108). According to Postman, narratives establish the meaning, that determines the purpose, that directs the learning (1995). In other words, we are what we read! The people who lived in Massachusetts in the 1600s knew this, which is why they placed God’s word at the center of learning; God’s recorded narrative provided the meaning, which determined the purpose, which directed the learning of seventeenth-century colonists. With the removal of the Old and New Testament from education, not only was the narrative altered, but so too was the presumed purpose of education (Postman, 1995). History not only provides insight into what led to present conditions, but it also provides context for past and present outcomes that shape and define our identity (Dreher, 2020).
When education grows out of a value-laden narrative (the Bible), purpose precedes learning; when education emerges out of a value-less narrative (state standards), purpose succeeds learning. At its historical conception in America, education was purposeful for man’s good and for society’s gain. Knowledge of Scripture was needed that one might know his Creator, live by His truth, and love by His power. Without a devout allegiance to God, man would not have a devoted allegiance to mankind—or to country. Hence, the purpose for education resulted in the need for education. However, at its current stage of development, education’s purpose seems to be identified in retrospect. If test scores are low, the purpose is to raise those scores; if drop-out rates are high, the purpose is to decrease that percentage; if career-readiness is lacking, the purpose is to develop those skills. Without a purposeful narrative to guide education, education’s goals will continually change direction because man’s standards will perpetually lack direction. God is immutable; state standards are not.
The words of Pope John Paul II aptly define the purpose of education: “Education should lead us to know, love, and serve God. We know God through faith and reason, and this is what education must strive to achieve” (Kinnaman, 2011, p. 221). This mindset, however, has not only left our nation’s school system, it has vacated our nation’s value system. The primary social structures within society are home, school, and church. When families cease to make church a priority, the Church’s discipleship arm is shortened; when schools cease to make Biblical values a premise, the school’s moral arm is curtailed. And, when left to fend for itself—bereft of values promoted through family, church, and school—"society’s social norms and sanctions [will] arise out of the social structure itself” (Drexler, 2021, p.4). So, the following questions unfurl: By whom will society’s values be formed? From whom will they be instilled? And, to how many generations will they be transferred? For the good of society, the family, the Church, and the school need to have a unified purpose. All three need a shared mission.
Challenges for Missional Mindsets
When it comes to missions, the forest is usually more evident than the trees. The term mission tends to carry a broad connotation: it is an assignment, an operation, or an outcome. However, while missions provide an overarching structure, they are also comprised of distinct pillars. Therefore, the individual directives—as well as the collective goal—are what define a mission and determine its fulfillment. Although missions are generally associated with the Church, they are applicable to all organizations. Additionally, one’s mission encompasses more than going, it also includes growing; missions do not merely describe what churches do, they define who organizations are. Mission statements define a group’s purpose and determine a group’s direction. In general terms, a mission statement identifies an organization’s end goal; in specific terms, a mission statement ensures every play moves toward the intended goal.
When addressing challenges with the missional mindset, shortcomings are evident within the Church as well as within education. For the Church, whose mission statement is found in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), the lack of a missional mindset has led many young Christians to disconnect with their church. According to Kinnaman (2011), fewer than 20% of believers (aged 18 – 29) identified mission opportunities within their local church. For generations intrigued with social justice, younger Christians want opportunities to be doers of the word and not hearers only (McNeal, 2003; Kinnaman, 2011). Therefore, when the Church fails to intentionally connect with society, younger Christians lose interest in church and become “disillusioned with traditional religion” (Miller, 2004, p. 8).
Not only does a lack of missional involvement by the Church create religious and denominational disengagement for Gen Z and Millennials, but it also propagates a vacuum leading to their social engagement with secular groups within society. For these generations seeking connectedness, what they do not find within the Church they will find outside the Church. As a result, not only will individuals form an alliance with a new community, but they will also form an attachment with the new community’s values (Dreher, 2020, p. 44). To deter this secular assimilation, churches need to create context rather than programs, thereby integrating themselves into a “larger social ecosystem” which will provide access to Biblically centered engagement (Miller, 2004, p. 185).
While mission intentionality affects Church involvement, mission clarity affects educational engagement. Just as Gen Z and Millennials attribute their disconnect from church to its assumed lack of purpose, so too do these generations assign their discontent with education to its presumed lack of purpose. Though most schools have mission statements intended to define and determine their philosophical views, curricular materials, and instructional methods, too often students do not experience a connectedness between what their school supposes and what their school proposes. When lessons are presented as parts without a whole rather than as parts of a whole, their underlying purpose is lost. Lessons are articulated, but severed from Biblical truth, their purpose is not attached. Learning is introduced, but separated from God’s revelation, its purpose is not instilled.
Lastly, when the presence of missional involvement by schools was separated from the purpose for missional involvement in schools, the estrangement left moral value orphaned. While schools still encourage programs that promote kindness, generosity, and community service, by not attaching these attributes to a Biblical framework, they are left unanchored…and unvalued. Mankind’s treatment of others is grounded in his value for others; mankind’s value for others is rooted in God’s value of him. When children do not know they are created, loved, redeemed, and esteemed, how are they to know their own value, much less the value of others? Mission statements alone are not enough for schools or for churches; to be exponentially effective, schools and churches need eternally focused mission statements and relational mission opportunities.
In regard to the proposed formula of C=em2, where m2 represents missions, the presence of an exponent indicates the potential power of missions. Since squaring a number results in exponential growth, squaring a word, especially a concept like missions, may have the same effect. If so, when an organization’s mission is to be missional, the impact should be exponential!
Applying C=em2
In Matthew 28:19–20, Jesus gave a final assignment to the disciples, and conversely to all believers, with these words: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” While believers (i.e., the Church) have been commissioned to share the gospel, they have also been consigned to teach the gospel and to make disciples. Teaching Biblical principles, however, requires daily instruction that unites all areas of study—discipleship necessitates the development of a Biblical worldview. To fulfill its great mission, the Church (C) needs to teach, to educate (e), and to be missional (m2).
Returning to the proposed formula C=em2, three questions may be posed. First, how can the Church strengthen education? Second, how might the Church share its mission field? Third, how could this formula benefit all educators and parents? From a “mathematical” perspective, any adjustment made to one side of the equation will affect the other side of the equation. If this holds true, what is done within the Church will affect what happens in education and missions. Likewise, what is done within education and missions will affect what happens in the Church.
How can the Church strengthen education? As identified earlier, one of the challenges in education stems from a perceived lack of purpose. Students fail to hold a value for learning when they cannot identify the purpose in learning. The generations present in today’s elementary and secondary classrooms, Generation Z and Generation Alpha (born after 2015), are seeking application as much as—perhaps more than—accomplishment. These students are looking for the connection between knowing and doing. Left without opportunities to apply what they have been taught, they will fail to identify the purposefulness of learning. In the absence of purpose, educational achievement as well as behavioral attitudes may diminish.
From a missional point of view, society expects schools to “produce” moral citizens, but programs and policies are not generating notable results. While many educators diligently promote and model character traits such as empathy, compassion, and forbearance, the lack of experiential learning may result in the lack of purposeful learning. By connecting with schools (public and Christian), the Church could provide opportunities for students to become doers as well as hearers, thereby turning pointless lessons into purposeful learning which will stimulate cognitive and character growth.
How might the Church share its mission field? Without violating the Establishment Clause, Churches could provide opportunities for students in all educational settings to serve others. Within all congregations, there are people with needs. Widows need comfort and companionship, the sick need affirmation and encouragement, the grieving need hope for tomorrow. And, within all classrooms, there are students who need reasons to write, to paint, to plan, and to serve. The Church needs hearts and hands; the school needs projects with purpose. Should the Church lay hold of the missional opportunities available through education, they might find their outreach is within reach.
How could this formula benefit educators and parents? Public schools have far more restraints than their Christian school counterparts. However, when it comes to Church involvement with schools, public educators need to be prudent, but not passive. For example, the First Amendment is not violated when the Church provides opportunities through which students may share their learning while not providing pathways through which the Church will share its teachings. It is the organization of the Church rather than the orthodoxy of the Church that supports education in this context.
Along with providing support for students, the Church may also provide support for Christian teachers serving in public education. While there are laws restricting teachers from sharing their faith with students, there are also laws allowing teachers to share their faith with colleagues…and with students before or after the school day! Too often, Christian educators fail to enact their religious freedoms because they fail to understand their legal rights. Churches could operate as public surveyors and advocates for the Free Exercise Clause, informing Christian teachers of their rights and responsibilities in public-school settings.
Regarding Christian schools, the Church could literally elevate the accessibility and affordability of Christian education so school choice is an option for everyone. Should the Church lay hold of the role education and missions have in fulfilling the Great Commission, they could work through schools to promote, practice, and preserve the gospel. If Churches came to view schools as mission fields as well as fields for launching missions, they could multiply their impact at home and abroad. Once the Church embraced a C=em2 mindset, it could support Christian education economically, educationally, and evangelically. And, freed from the burden of self-support, Christian schools could focus on their primary goal: teaching the children of God about the world of God according to the word of God.
If the formula C=em2 were to hold true, perhaps the productive struggle between Church and education would cancel out problems on both sides of the equation. By providing schools with opportunities to “be missional,” both the Church’s need for service and the students’ need for purpose could be met. Mission involvement would spread exponentially, finding its foothold in the classroom and expanding across the curriculum, across the community, and across the Church. Christian educators in public schools could be edified by the Church so that the work of their hands might be strengthened by the knowledge of their rights. Christian parents could be aided by the Church’s financial support of Christian schools, allowing Christian education to become available and affordable. And, by utilizing missional opportunities in and through education, the Church could passionately and purposefully pursue the Great Commission. If C=em2 were applied, the Church and education would be fed by the same stream and they would “be like a tree planted by rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in due season, whose leaf also shall not wither; and whatever [they] do shall prosper” (Psalm 1:3).
Dr. Thomas R. Rosebrough served as an editor for this piece.
REFERENCES
- Barna Group. (2017). Multiple choice: How parents sort education options in a changing market. Association of Christian Schools Intedrexlerrnational.
- Barna Group. (2020). Signs of Decline & Hope Among Key Metrics of Faith. Barna Group.
- Dreher, R. (2020). Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents. Sentinel.
- Fraser, J. (Ed.). (2014). The School in the United States. Routledge.
- Greer, P., & Horst, C. (2014). Mission Drift. Bethany House Publishers.
- Kinnaman, D. (2011). You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church, and Rethinking Faith. Baker Books.
- McNeal, R. (2003). The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church. Jossey-Bass.
- Miller, R. (2004). The Millennium Matrix: Reclaiming the Past, Reframing the Future of the Church. Jossey-Bass.
- Murray, A. (2018). Saving Truth. Zondervan.
- Pew Research Center. (2015). America’s Changing Religious Landscape. Pew Research Center.
- Pew Research Center. (2019). Religion in the public schools. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/10/03
- Postman, N. (1995) The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. Vintage Books.