AN INTEGRATION OF
BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND DISCIPLESHIP
BY
MICHAEL RUSSELL, D.Min.
© 2002
There are two ways we can distort God’s role
in the ministry of Christian education.
The first is to discount it, and to see Christian growth
as simply a natural process.
The second is to make it a magical thing,
demanding that God work against all natural processes
and intervene in spectacular ways.
It is far better, and far more biblical, to realize that
God works through natural means in a supernatural way.
– Lawrence Richards, 1975
Introduction
The purpose of the present work is to present an integration of the biblical depiction of human experience with the present understanding of the human brain that may then be used to inform and facilitate education and discipleship within the local church.
While efforts to integrate Christian theology and psychology are not new, attempts to reconcile the findings of the neurosciences with the teaching of the Bible concerning human nature are relatively recent. The present study differs from the majority of integrative writings: although numerous attempts have been made in the past to integrate secular psychology and Christian theology, such efforts typically were aimed at integrating a particular theory or school of psychological thought with the data of the Bible. Frequently, however, a theory that originated with secular psychologists is imposed upon the Bible: the theory assumed to be true is then supported by carefully adduced verses and passages.
This work differs from previous writings in significant ways.
First, the desire here is to reconcile special revelation with general revelation: that aspect of biblical anthropology which is concerned with the human constitution is to be embedded in the neurological facts known at this time. Stated differently, this paper seeks to infuse human physical existence with the individual’s immaterial experience.
Second, no actual theory or “school” of psychology, drawn from either the Bible or any other source, is offered: the purpose here is to explain how the biblical picture of human nature can be synthesized with the physical nature of the brain. This study develops a model of biblical anthropology that is independent of secular theories, philosophy, metaphysics, or neuropsychology.
Third, the discoveries and information gained from neurology are subsumed under the authoritative revelation of Scripture. Neuropsychology serves only to suggest how God might accomplish His work in His children; it does not explain the content of the mind, heart, or soul.
Finally, this work parts ways with other writings in that it does not seek to address any specific problem or struggle with which Christians often are faced. In contrast, a general approach to education and discipleship is presented which can then be adapted to specific situations and needs.
Goals
There are two major goals which the paper endeavors to accomplish. The first is to correlate the teachings of the Bible concerning the immaterial dimension of man with current information pertaining to the workings of the human brain. This necessitates an examination of the various aspects of man that are discussed in the Bible, and this biblical explanation is then placed within a neuropsychological framework.
The second major objective is to develop an approach to Christian education and discipleship which is informed by the resulting model of the human constitution. The educational model is the more practical and, perhaps, more important of the two, but had to be shown to be consistent with the approach modeled in the Bible. It is not enough to demonstrate that an approach to Christian education and discipleship is in agreement with the general revelation of the neurosciences; the neuroscience needed to be evaluated by the special revelation of the Bible. This necessitated the reconciliation of special and general revelation concerning human nature.
Assumptions
Five theological and one neuropsychological assumptions were made in this study. The theological assumptions pertained to the Bible, biblical psychology, anthropology, the Holy Spirit, and sanctification; the neurological assumption concerned the validity of the science.
1. It was assumed that the Bible was given by inspiration of God, and that inspiration extended equally and fully to all parts of the writings as they appeared in the original manuscripts. Consequently, the whole Bible in the originals is without error; it was also assumed that the standard, evangelical Bible as it exists today has been faithfully preserved and is free from error in all that it states. It was assumed that all of Scripture was designed for the believer’s practical instruction.
2. It was assumed that the Scriptures contain a biblical anthropology and that this depiction and explanation of human nature could be discovered.
3. It was assumed that God created Adam and placed within him the imago Dei, that this image is present in every person, and that the image in believers is being renewed to the likeness of Jesus Christ in His humanity. It was assumed that God did not use evolution to create Adam but created him in a moment of time as explained in Scripture.
4. It was assumed that every Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit; there is no such thing as a Christian who is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
5. It was assumed that God is at work in every believer to conform them to the image of Jesus Christ. It also was further assumed that sanctification is a work of the Holy Spirit with Whom the believer cooperates by yielding to and facilitating His work.
6. Regarding research on the structure and workings of the human brain, it was assumed that neurology is a credible scientific endeavor, permitted by and even encouraged in the Scriptures, and findings related to the transmission of neural messages in the brain is reasonably factual. Neurology, which is not inspired by Greek myths or untested academic speculations, is based on observation and repeatable, verifiable research conducted on human beings.
Scope and Limitations
There were numerous limitations imposed upon the present work. Since the purpose of the paper was restricted to exploring the implications of an integration of biblical anthropology and neuropsychology for discipleship and Christian education, several aspects of biblical anthropology were not developed fully. Only those facets of biblical anthropology involved in learning and discipleship are explored.
Although a worthwhile and enlightening study, an examination of the relationship between neuropsychology and demon possession was not undertaken. This was due largely to the writer’s belief that Christians cannot be demon possessed (although they certainly may be oppressed). This paper chiefly is confined to intrinsic influences and activities within the immaterial dimension of the believer.
Since it is assumed that the human is a sinner by imputation, inheritance, and choice, the origin and universality of sin is not developed fully. The related teaching concerning a person’s inability to gain merit in the eyes of God apart from His saving grace also resided beyond the purview of the paper.
Neuropsychology is an enormous field and growing larger daily: because of that fact, numerous dimensions of the human brain were not included in the paper or mentioned only in passing. Brain architecture, including the various components of the human brain – such as the cerebellum, cerebral cortex, limbic system, and ventricles – were not discussed in detail. Considerable issues such as consciousness were also neglected. Only those areas of the brain which are directly involved in learning and discipleship were investigated.
Neurological theories of motivation, apart from identifying basic precipitators of neural activity in the brain, were not considered. Similarly, neurochemistry – the chemical elements required for normal thought processes – were not discussed. This restriction included a consideration of specific neuronal activities and neurotransmitters and their functions within the brain.
The peripheral nervous system was not examined; only the central nervous system was explored. Even here, discussion pertaining to the central nervous system was limited to specific and activities in the brain.
The origin, “evolution,” and nature of consciousness was not developed fully, including the present-day metaphysical interest in quantum mechanics and its possible connection to consciousness.
Overview
Chapter One, which serves as a brief review of the various approaches to developing a psychology or anthropology, distinguishes between general revelation, special revelation, and efforts to combine the two sources of data. It also differentiates between biblical psychology and anthropology, which is limited strictly to the special revelation of the Bible, and Christian psychology and anthropology, which is governed by special revelation but also incorporates what can be learned from general revelation. General revelation, and the neurosciences in particular, is held to be more supportive than complementary to special revelation: neurology, in this case, does not compete with biblical psychology but rather describes the “how” and “where” of God’s working in people. The Bible alone explains the “why” and offers a description of what should be the content and nature of human psychology and anthropology.
Chapter Two presents a novel approach to biblical psychology that stresses the unity, or monistic nature, of human beings. It explores the various aspects of human constitution and offers a model which does justice to the different manifestations of the immaterial while emphasizing the unity of the person.
Chapter Three provides an overview of how the brain works and suggests how God works in and through the physical brain to accomplish His purposes. It describes neural communication, the development of schemas, and briefly looks at the mind-brain connection. The synthesis of special and general revelations offers possible ways in which God superintends and directs neural communication and the development of neural networks to accomplish His work in sanctification.
Chapter Four begins with an overview of the traditional approach to secular education as well as Christian education and discipleship, examining their foundations and discovering why they have not been as effective as hoped. A theory of brain-based learning is described and demonstrated to be consistent with the approach utilized and modeled by Jesus Christ in His training of His disciples. Finally, the conditions for and twelve principles of brain-based learning and teaching are outlined and applied to Christian education and discipleship.
Chapter Five contains concluding remarks, including a heuristic application of the model developed in the paper to the life of Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. It also includes comments on how and why Christian counseling, in all its various forms, is used by God to help others.
Chapter One
THE INTEGRATION OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THEOLOGY:
PROPOSED, OPPOSED, AND DISPOSED
This chapter explores the various aspects three closely-related approaches to the study of human nature: (1) those approaches which are derived from general revelation alone, hereafter referred to as extra-biblical (which are not contrary or antagonistic to Christian principles) or secular psychology (which are) ; (2) those which are based solely on the special revelation of the Bible, referred to as biblical psychology, and (3) those which draw from both general and special revelation, herein called Christian psychology.
To restate the distinction, extra-biblical and secular approaches are limited to what can be discovered only from the sciences, biblical psychology is confined to the data that may be adduced from the Bible, and Christian psychology utilizes what may be known from special revelation – the Bible – but also incorporates the current state of knowledge gleaned from general revelation. In Christian psychology as the term is used here, priority is always given to what may be known from the Bible: its truths are unchanging, while the conclusions gleaned from general revelation – such as the neurosciences – are less enduring. The use of such distinguishing terms is not strictly descriptive and does not imply exclusion of all properties of the other terms: e.g., a “biblical psychology” most certainly will be Christian, and Christian psychology must be biblical.
In essence, this chapter investigates the viability, necessity, and nature of attempts by various Christian scholars to integrate extra-biblical psychology and biblical psychology; at the same time, it examines objections raised by opponents of such efforts. Ultimately, a qualitatively different type of resolution is suggested. The model presented here is a biblical anthropology resting upon and reconciled with neuropsychology: while the neurosciences may explain the dynamics of biblical anthropology, it does not compete with it at a metaphysical level. As used here, biblical anthropology is restricted to the immaterial aspect of the human constitution, i.e., the spirit and soul.
Whether or not integration is appropriate has a direct bearing on Christian education and discipleship. The source of data and resulting conceptualization of Christian psychology are determinative in developing a theory or philosophy of Christian education and discipleship that grows out of and is consistent with the Bible’s teachings on human nature. Any system of Christian education and discipleship, which has as its goal the facilitation of the spiritual transformation of Christians into the likeness of Christ, must be based upon a Christian understanding of the nature of the human person. The nature of the student or disciple dictates the content and form of instruction (1 Cor 3.1-2, Heb 5.11-14).
The chapter begins with an explanation of the importance of a thorough, scientifically tenable, Christian anthropology as an underlying, guiding principle in Christian education and, especially, Christian discipleship within the local church. It continues with a brief overview of the historic relationship between psychology and theology, and includes a synopsis of the antagonism that has existed for decades between proponents and opponents of integration. The historical synopsis is followed by an alternative approach that serves as the raison d'être of the present model of Christian education and discipleship.
Rationale
For the purposes of this paper, all arguments and justifications for the reconciliation of neuroscience and biblical anthropology were reduced to two: such efforts were viewed as being either heuristic or pragmatic. Heurism examines the subject for the sake of inspiring further exploration of the subject matter, while pragmatism finds value in such study only as a means to accomplish a specific task more effectively. The legitimacy of engaging in a heuristic or purely academic approach is open to question, but research and study simply for the sake of acquiring more knowledge or inspiring more research is not the goal of this work. The approach taken here is motivated by the practical implications and applications that might be drawn from a harmonization of neuropsychology and biblical anthropology.
The demonstration of the viability of a Christian anthropology – or, more accurately, a Christian neuropsychology derived from general revelation and interpreted by the Bible – is viewed as a theologically demanded precursor to any attempt at reconciliation. An approach to learning which is consistent with the present-day understanding of how the human brain learns must first be shown to be consistent with biblical teaching regarding human nature. All truth may be God’s truth, but the observations and conclusions drawn from the tentative truths of general revelation must be weighed against the definite truths of special revelation; thus, the development of a biblical anthropology preceded and took precedence over what may be known of human nature from the sciences of the brain. Nothing from neuropsychology – or any other source – is included if it cannot be demonstrated to be compatible with the teachings of the Bible.
The development of a neurologically-grounded Christian anthropology has importance beyond serving as a theoretical foundation for education and discipleship. Brain-based learning, i.e., the manner in which the brain assimilates and accommodates new information, must be understood by those in teaching positions in the local church. As will be shown, an awareness of a Christian anthropology that incorporates what is known from extra-biblical research regarding the brain and the process of learning is necessary for Christian educators if they are to present Bible-based content in a brain-based learning format. Speaking of the corresponding need for a drastic change in the approach of secular institutions to education, Geoffrey and Renate Caine stress the importance for teachers to comprehend neuropsychology in order to participate more effectively in the educational process: “The task, then, is for educators to deeply understand the way in which the brain learns.” Understanding how the brain learns, they argue, is vital for teachers if they are to create lessons and activities that yield not merely an accumulation of facts, but an application of the material reflected in changes in behavior. All teachers possess a theory of teaching and learning which must be evaluated by information on how the brain actually learns.
Similarly, the application of a neurologically-explained Christian anthropology will require significant changes for most churches with regard to their philosophy of ministry and approach to Christian education and discipleship. It will necessitate an abandonment of the traditional approach to “doing” church and Sunday School that has been predominantly based on secular psychology’s approach to education.
Given the radical change that a neurologically-informed approach to Christian education and discipleship would require, it is necessary to prove that brain-based learning is not only allowed by the Bible, but is implicitly taught and modeled in the Scriptures. For Christian education to be truly Christian, it must be thoroughly and consistently based upon the verifiable truths which God has provided through both general and special revelation. Ultimately, the practice of Christian education must adhere to and build upon those truths.
More than twenty-five years ago, Christian educator Lawrence Richards voiced concerns over the church’s secular approach to education. After drawing attention to the complex and multifaceted nature of human personality, he remarked that
. . . in our culture we have picked out one element and given it peculiar priority. That element is belief. Somehow all our educational efforts seem to hinge on the idea that if we change belief, we change the personality in every respect. We also assume that to change belief we need only to provide new information.
In developing what he described as a theology of Christian education, Richards stressed the failure of the old model of teaching and learning, calling for an approach that is more consistent with the model implied and reflected in the Bible:
Change strategy 1 (the formal schooling approach) is not adequate to effect changes across the total personality, tending instead to produce isolated rather than operating beliefs. Change strategy 2 (a nonformal learning approach) does a better job of producing whole-person growth and change, for it deals with all personality elements (affect, behaviors, values, perceptions, etc.) at the same time that it deals with belief (e.g., content). [emphases his]
Richards, as he surveyed the state of education in evangelical churches, was concerned with the final outcome of Christian education. It appeared that Christ’s modern-day disciples were not known by their love for one another (Jn 13.34), but rather by their knowledge of the Greek words for love and the specific usages and definitions of each!
In arguing for a return to a biblical model of Christian education, he wrote:
We must be ready to abandon our dependence on precedents established in a secular educational system which is not concerned with likeness but with information, and to design a unique educational process rooted in Scripture’s concern for the nurture of life. In that new design, the roles of the teacher and of learner must be harmonized with need for a model who, through shared learning experience, can “make disciples.”
The educational system in the United States, if not most of the Western world, has been and still is guided by a model that is behaviorally ineffective due to its failure to comprehend the manner in which the brain earns. “Schooling has gone off the rails because it tends to equate knowledge about the world with direct knowledge of the world,” according to Caine and Caine (emphases theirs). This confusion, the authors contend, has been responsible for the ineffectiveness of public schools. It is not unreasonable, by extension, to assume that this explanation also accounts for the significant gap between what Christians know and what they actually do with such knowledge. Caine and Caine continue:
The standard model treats the stuff to be learned as separate and detached from the person doing the learning. Brain research shows that to be largely wrong. As people learn about the world in meaningful ways, the learning changes them. They are changed psychologically, and they are changed physiologically . . . They are literally reshaped and reformed.
Being “reshaped and reformed” echoes the outworking of the command that Jesus Christ gave to His church through the evangelist Matthew shortly before His ascension. Christ directed His disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Mt 28.19); Paul described the experience of being a disciple as being “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12.2). To effectively work toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission, it is imperative that the church reject the traditional, secular model of education and return to the model implied and exemplified in the New Testament, which is brain-based discipleship and Christian education.
Richards continued his call for drastic changes by questioning what was actually being accomplished in Christian education versus what needed to be achieved. He also located the problem in the church’s adoption of the secular model of education:
Christian education must be designed for the whole person, not for a single dimension of his personality. For this reason we must begin to challenge what we have done and are doing in Christian education. We must begin to raise the question of whether we are communicating life . . . or isolated beliefs. We must ask whether or not our acceptance of secular school structures as the context for the communication of faith may not actually hinder Christian growth. By attempting to teach faith in “school” settings we perhaps have inadvertently given learners the impression that biblical truth is for the mind only, divorced from doing, and that learning God’s Word is a separate and distinct intellectual activity for the young! [emphases his]
The value of a brain-based, Christian understanding of human nature and its application to Christian education is to be found in its effectiveness: rather than providing Christians with information which is typically isolated from subsequent behavior, a neurologically-based, Christian philosophy of education offers an increased probability of creating environments wherein the Holy Spirit can work to change lives. Transformation of character into the likeness of Jesus Christ is the proper goal of Christian education and discipleship: knowledge of God, not about God, is what is required.
Eschewing the information model of Christian education, Richards added that the biblical model is “concerned with the progressive transformation of the believer toward the character, values, motives, attitudes, and understandings of God Himself.” He added, “Strikingly, it seems that when we adopted from our culture the formal school approach to nurture, we in fact set up the conditions under which discipling and growth in likeness are least likely to take place!” One of the goals of the Christian neuropsychology presented here is to move the church away from an informational model of education and to return the Body of Christ to a transformational and relational approach to discipleship.
Historical Overview
For more than two millennia, psychology and theology coexisted as related disciplines, with the former a minor subject in an environment dominated by Christian theology and, to a lesser extent, philosophy. Until the last century, psychology had been regarded as a subordinate area of study to be considered under the heading of either philosophy or religion. Judaism and Christianity were important contributors to the discussion, and the essence of the nature of the human person was largely determined or (at least) profoundly influenced by theological pronouncements which went largely unchallenged by others. Benner observed that
Long before psychology developed as a separate discipline from philosophy, Christianity was actively involved in the study, development, and understanding of psychology. Such work is to be found in the theological study of the soul, an important topic in theology since earliest times.
The writings of Tertullian in the Third Century and Gregory of Nyssa in the Fourth represented early efforts of the Christian community to provide an understanding of the nature of the person as revealed in the pages of Scripture. Before the emergence of psychology as an independent branch of learning, biblical psychology perhaps reached its zenith in the 1855 publication of A System of Biblical Psychology by Franz Delitzsch. The powerful influence of Christianity in shaping the Western world’s view of the nature of the person, however, soon was to be not only challenged but essentially brought to an abrupt end.
As stated previously, extra-biblical or secular psychology as a separate discipline is relatively new. Championed by metaphysically-biased scientists such as Sigmund Freud and others, the field of psychology stepped forth from the shadows of theology and philosophy and emerged as a cultural force during the last half of the nineteenth century. Since that time, psychology’s importance in Western culture can hardly be exaggerated; sadly but predictably, it has had a similarly profound effect on the church. Carter and Narramore stated that, “With the possible exception of the theory of evolution in biology, psychology has already had a greater impact on the church than any other scientific discipline.”
The last half of the twentieth century saw psychology at first infiltrate and then practically dominate the life of the Christian church in the United States. A brief period of justification for the incorporation of various threads of extra-biblical psychology into the fabric of historic Christianity, for which numerous Christian psychologists argued, was quickly followed by a veritable flood of workshops, seminars, software programs, magazine articles, books, and graduate degrees designed to “enlighten” Christianity about the benefits and insights of extra-biblical – and even secular – psychology. In addition to their considerable influence on biblical anthropology, Christian psychologists all-but replaced Christian theologians as the authoritative voice for matters of faith and practice, and the place of extra-biblical psychology appeared to be firmly established by the end of the millennium. The tragic shift was complete: whereas Christianity had previously impacted psychology, the upstart psychology was now impacting, influencing and even changing Christianity.
Integration Proposed
An important book proposing the reasonableness and necessity of integration was 1979’s The Integration of Psychology and Theology, which provided both a classification and a justification for attempts at integration. Since the book helped in determining the form and substance of many subsequent attempts at integration, as well as providing basic presuppositions supporting such efforts, it is considered here in some detail as representative of the proponents of integration.
A key, foundational belief espoused in the book was “the unity of truth,” by which was meant, “all truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found.” A corollary assumption grew from the first: “If all truth is God’s truth, there is a basic unity between all disciplines.” These two presuppositions cleared the way for the investigation and frequent acceptance of psychological theories and “truths,” and their incorporation into Christian ministry and doctrine. In what was tantamount to the elevation of the doctrinal and epistemological value of general revelation to that of special revelation, the proponents argued that since
God is the author of all truth, we need not be afraid to examine what might appear to be competing truth claims. If God is the author of all truth, we are not dealing with ultimately different sources of truth. And if issues such as personal adjustment, motivation, determinism, and the handling of negative emotions are not common to both psychology and theology, then we have in view either a truncated gospel or a very narrow psychology.
This approach, named the “Integrates Model” by the authors, was their preferred approach to any effort to combine psychology and theology. Crucial to the model was the belief that psychology and theology were potentially complementary comrades rather than competitors or enemies; additionally, it emphasized the almost-equal value of the two disciplines. Basing their rationale on God as the Provider of general revelation as well as special revelation, they concluded, “there is ultimately only one set of explanatory hypotheses.” For them, the influence of psychology and theology was justifiably reciprocal.
The work and words of J. Harold Ellens, a prominent figure during the nascent years of attempts to integrate psychology and theology, reflected some of the basic beliefs of the adherents of the “Integrates Model”:
The real issue in the quest for Christian responsibility in the helping professions is the search for a method and model of doing Theology from a psychological perspective and doing Psychology from a theological perspective . . .
In the realm of psychological practice, the first principle of being Christian is not that it conforms to our Theology but that it is the most superbly sound psychotherapy possible. To be a Christian therapist requires first of all that I be a thoroughly effective therapist [emphases his].
Ellens was only one of the many proponents of integration who, although differing in methodology and extent, found the adaptation of psychological “discoveries” to biblical truth to be a necessary undertaking for the effectiveness of ministry and discipleship.
Gary Collins, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, sought to develop a psychological model for Christians and non-Christians alike that was based on the Bible. He stated, for example, that his “new approach to counseling would propose that a person is abnormal if he is alienated from God.” (Implied in such a statement is that those who are not alienated, i.e., are in fellowship with God, are not abnormal – an optimistic, if not realistic, position.) Over time, however, Collins moved more toward the center of the integrationist movement and employed psychology as a lens through which the Bible and Christian life could be more effectively understood, applied, and lived.
Others promoting or practicing the “Integrates Model” included James Dobson, Norman Wright, John White, Sandra Wilson, Dan Allender, Gary Smalley, Larry Crabb, Paul Tournier, Kirk Farnsworth, Henry Cloud, and John Townsend.
The authors identified two other approaches: the “Of Model” and the “Parallels Model.” The former maintained that there was considerable overlap or common ground between psychology and theology, thereby tending to lose the distinction of Christian truth and reduce theology to a religious psychology.
The “Of Model,” Carter and Narramore said, rested upon “humanistic, mystical, and/or naturalistic assumptions” and maintained that “psychology and religion have a great deal in common and can be of great benefit to one another when there is open exchange between the two realms.” Theological terms and doctrines were redefined and modified to reflect a psychological Christianity:
The supernatural and revelational aspects of Scripture are rejected in favor of an approach that looks for the psychology of Scripture . . . It takes a cookie-cutter approach in which the theories of psychology are pressed onto the dough of Scripture. The dough that fits within the cutter is retained while whatever falls outside is rejected . . . It reduces Scripture (or religion) to psychology and robs it of its revelational and supernatural content.
Advocates of the “Of Model,” according to Carter and Narramore, included John Sanford and Seward Hiltner.
The “Parallels Model,” as the name implied, saw psychology and theology as parallel disciplines which either existed as distinct areas of study with no significant intersection, or addressed the same issues and data but employed different terminology. In the first case, there was no integration since the disciplines had no common ground; in the second, the concepts were identical but described by different terms.
The “Parallels Model”is rooted in the belief that Christianity and psychology are not intrinsically related. Each exists in it own sphere. Psychology is scientific while Christianity is personal (or social). Both Christianity and psychology can be embraced without fear of conflict since they operate in different spheres. Where we do find areas of relationship and overlap, we view these more as interesting parallels than as indicators of a deeper (or broader) unifying set of truths that could conceivably embrace both disciplines.
Among those whom the authors regarded as proponents of the “Parallels Model” were Malcolm Jeeves, Paul Clement, and Clyde Narramore. This was an unfair characterization of some in the group. As demonstrated in a later chapter, Jeeves – as well as David Myers, Warren Brown, Nancey Murphey, and others who might have been labeled as holding to a “Parallels Model” – was actually proposing a model of Christian psychology qualitatively different from anything imagined by Carter and Narramore.
Integration Opposed
There has been considerable opposition to efforts to integrate psychology and theology, opposition that ostensibly grew out of a concern for the purity of the faith and the integrity of the Word of God. One of the more recognizable and caustic critics has been John F. MacArthur, Jr., the president of The Master’s Seminary and Professor of Pastoral Ministries there.
Of chief concern for MacArthur and others was the “neo-gnostic” influence of psychology on the purity of the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. The gospel, they argued, in its broadest sense includes not only eternal salvation but also temporal salvation, i.e., that which is commonly referred to as sanctification. Despite his at-times vitriolic polemics, MacArthur (and others) felt as though he was doing battle against the most virulent, insidious attack of Satan on the church in his lifetime:
The stampede to embrace the doctrines of secular psychology may be the most serious threat to the life of the church today. These doctrines are a mass of human ideas that Satan has placed in the church as though they were powerful life-changing truths from God. Most psychologists epitomize neo-gnosticism, claiming to have secret knowledge for solving people’s real problems. Some of them even claim to perform a therapeutic technique they call “Christian counseling” when, in reality, they are using secular theory with biblical references tacked on to treat spiritual problems.
MacArthur maintained that no one, counselor or not, can lift another person above the level of spiritual maturity which they have attained; therefore, the definitive qualification for helpers is Christlikeness. “True psychology (i.e., ‘the study of the soul’) can be done only by Christians,” he added, “since only Christians have the resources for understanding and transforming the soul.”
In his vehement opposition to integration, MacArthur identified what for him was a critical point that summarized the differences between proponents and opponents of integration: the issue of the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
Like theistic evolution, Christian psychology is an attempt to harmonize two inherently contradictory systems of thought. Modern psychology and the Bible cannot be blended without serious compromise to or utter abandonment of the principle of Scripture’s sufficiency . . .
People who mix psychology with divine resources and sell the mixture as a spiritual elixir should not be encouraged. Their methodology amounts to a tacit admission that what God has given in Christ is not adequate to meet the deepest needs of troubled lives.
Other opponents voiced similar objections with more grace and mercy than MacArthur but ended up being no less obdurate in their conclusions and, at times, overstating the positions of the proponents of integration. Paul Vitz, in a consideration of the so-called Third Wave of psychology, i.e., humanistic psychology, described it as “The Cult of Self-Worship” in the subtitle to his book. Even though some opponents were guilty of ignorance or deliberate distortion of the positions of integrationists, the generalized observations and broad criticisms leveled by critics such as Vitz ultimately proved to be timely and valuable correctives to the undiscerning acceptance of secular theories of psychology.
Carter and Narramore offered a characterization of the opponents of integration:
Christians operating from an Against view not only hold firmly to their belief in one source of truth, they also see other truth claims and their working out in therapy and society as potentially dangerous to mental and emotional health. Just as secular Against authors are concerned with the potentially negative effects of religion on a person’s psyche, so Christian Against authors are concerned about the possible negative influence of psychology.
In summarizing and evaluating the “Against Model” of integration, the authors found very little that could be considered positive and no practical value to the opponents’ position. They concluded:
By way of evaluation, we see no advantages to the Against model. Although some may think that the rhetoric of the secular and sacred camps serves to balance each other’s perspective, the truth is that they rarely if ever listen to one another. The oppositional stance inherent in both of these views does not allow proponents to step out of their own perspective to understand the suppositions, methodology, and reasoning of those holding other views. The Against model is a rigid, defensive way of looking at things that does not allow for stimulation, clarification, and integration.
A second disadvantage of the Against model is its limited epistemology. Secular proponents see no place for revelation and Christian proponents see little place for general revelation and common grace . . .
A final weakness of the Against model is found especially in the Christian version. Although it is not a necessary corollary of the sacred Against model, it seems that most proponents of this model hold a relatively superficial view of sin . . . Although theologically they may know better, their writings imply that a person’s problems can generally be traced to doing, saying, or thinking the wrong things. Thus therapy essentially becomes telling the counselee what the Bible says and how he or she should respond.
Integration Disposed
The enduring struggle between proponents and opponents of integration may be reduced to a single question: Which discipline, psychology or theology, is to be in subordinate service to the other? Some proponents maintained that the task of integration was the harmonization of two equal, parallel disciplines: both were enriched by the observations of the other. Other proponents argued that special revelation (Scripture) is superior to general revelation (psychology), but stopped short of confessing that Scripture is sufficient by itself. Opponents, too, were gathered into at least two camps: the first allowed that psychology may have discovered legitimate dimensions of the person, but found the general revelation offered by psychology to be superfluous given the sufficiency of the Bible. Similarly, a second oppositional group believed in the sufficiency of Scripture but perceived psychology not as a neutral-but-unnecessary observer, but as an insidious, gnostic influence on the Church.
At the level at which the war over integration was being waged, all factions could claim some legitimacy to their opinions. The position of this paper, however, is that the question of integration has been misstated from its inception: the resolution of the imagined conflict is to be found at a different level of dialogue. If integration were neither proposed nor opposed but instead disposed, the difficulties and criticisms leveled by all camps could be dismissed as irrelevant to the proper statement of the issue. Once such a disposition is accomplished, it then becomes possible to demonstrate that a Scripturally-derived, Christian psychology is not only consistent with neuropsychology, but that such an understanding of the human person could then be applied to the critical obligations of Christian education and discipleship. The only desirable or tenable contribution from general revelation in this matter are those neurological insights into how Scripture can be employed to equip believers to do that which God intends for them to do (1 Tim 3.16-17, Eph 2.10).
To endeavor to dispose of the integration of psychology and theology is not to advocate doing away with such efforts but, as one dictionary has defined “dispose,” it is to propose that the two be “put in a particular or suitable place.” A basic goal of the present paper is to put psychology, in particular, in its place: like secular archaeology, geology, or geography, a psychology springing from the study of general revelation – and specifically neuropsychology – can be utilized to inform the church in her efforts to disciple and educate Christians.
As with all knowledge gained through general revelation, however, such information has to be critically and carefully evaluated through the lens of special revelation. That having been said, an accurate, neurological understanding of the nature of human beings can greatly enhance the effectiveness of the church, while at the same time all but eliminate the need for forcing the square-pegged theories of secular psychology into the perfectly round holes of biblical anthropology.
To employ a computer analogy, the on-going argument between Christian proponents and Christian opponents of integration has been an argument about software, i.e., which is the better program to employ or how biblical software could be “updated” by newer, psychological versions. The approach taken here, however, does not seek to compare or harmonize software from general revelation with the software of special revelation. Instead, this view accepts the accuracy and sufficiency of the software of special revelation, i.e., the brain, but continues on to explore what general revelation explains about the nature of the hardware (the physical person). Always, however, the software of special revelation interprets and limits the explanations that general revelation offers concerning the hardware
A handful of Christian psychologists has taken up the challenge to investigate the implications of modern neuropsychology for the historical anthropological doctrines and positions of the church. They have found themselves in a position similar to that of Plato and Aristotle, who defended the soul against the reductionistic efforts of Democritus. Among the modern-day defenders of the soul is Arthur Custance, one of the early psychologically oriented Christian writers to consider the ramifications of brain research on the Christian faith. Describing the prevalent opposing philosophy of the day, i.e., reductionism (which regards the human person and soul to be nothing but an organism reducible to physics and chemistry), he wrote:
Man has been held to be essentially an electrochemical machine. . . . Mind is merely an extension of the mechanism of the brain and entirely dependent upon it. Such a view is by definition monistic: the brain acts upon the mind, which is a mere extension of itself, but the mind has no power to act upon the brain [emphasis his].
Custance rejected such a reductionistic approach to the person and chided science for having ignored “a whole area of reality in their search for power over the forces of nature.” His solution, which cannot be faulted, is to once again embrace the Scriptures:
We seem to be left with no alternative but to turn to biblical revelation, a remarkable account which has carried untold millions who were guided by it through the most severe testings imaginable with an absolute assurance of survival in peace and joy on the other side of the grave.
Now metaphysical speculation is the search for understanding by the use of reason alone without the help of revelation, whereas theology is the application of philosophy to religious experience by the use of reason but with the help of revelation. If this added source of data is allowed, we may perhaps usefully take a second look at what biblical theology has been saying for centuries on the mind/brain or soul/body relationship [emphasis his].
Custance seems to reflect a Thomistic approach to knowledge (“understand in order to believe”) rather than an Augustinian one (“believe in order to understand”), and the limitations of neuroscience during his day allowed him to embrace a theoretical dualism of mind-brain or soul-body. Subsequent developments in neuroscience, however, soon challenged the viability of such a dichotomous understanding of the person. Jeeves reported that “. . . the general thrust of a massive amount of research in neuroscience and neuropsychology points increasingly to the tightening of the link between mind and brain.” With Brown, Jeeves challenged the notion of a soul that existed apart from the body.
. . . the strong influence of neurobiological processes on our personal, social, and even spiritual lives, at the very least forces us to consider the embodiment of soulish human functioning. . . . Thus, a neuroscience perspective strongly questions a separate, non-material agency for the soul by which certain domains of human experience can remain unaffected by changes in brain function. . . . Soul (mind) is physiologically embodied. . . .
The unity of the body-mind-soul is clear in clinical neuropsychological phenomena such as the moral and religious breakdown in some individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, or the hyper-religiosity of some individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy, or spiritual depression secondary to physical disorders. Thus, the subjective experiences of soul and spirit rest deeply in the functions of the physical brain which abide by physical/biological laws.
Their belief in the ontological unity of the person is reflected in the statement, “We are souls; we don’t have souls.”
The viability of a dualistic view of the person (the immaterial existing and functioning independently of the material) has begun to be questioned by the secular scientific community. The ultimate evidence for Christians, of course, must come from the Bible, but even as previous scientific advances caused theologians to reexamine traditional positions, so the nature of humanity needs to be reconsidered by Christian thinkers in light of neurological research. The first half of this paper attempts to accomplish such a reconsideration.
A correct Christian anthropology has ministerial value apart from its application to Christian education and discipleship. How Christians understand themselves, the relationship of soul and brain, and the process of sanctification is crucial in fulfilling the second part of the Great Commandment, i.e., to love one another. Jeeves relates the following description of the ravages of Alzheimer’s dementia upon aging and previously mature, dedicated Christians:
As the disease progresses three distinguishable stages are evident. First is forgetfulness, second comes confusion, and finally dementia. In the final stage, psychotic-like delusions and hallucinations occur. The suffering patient may then manifest not only psychological consequences but also dramatic changes in spiritual awareness. Subjective appreciation of their relationship with God may be severely compromised. Detailed studies of devout Christians in the terminal stages of Alzheimer’s show that they are frequently deeply troubled about their relationship with God. They feel personally responsible for falling away from their close walk of discipleship, they may violate the commands of their nurses, and they may describe bizarre sexual disturbances. They may believe that they have committed sins that have provoked God’s wrath. In due course, they lose all interest in their daily devotions and prayer. They are, as the psalmist has portrayed, often crying out from the depths of chaos. With the neural changes of which we have considerable knowledge, there are psychological consequences, which in turn affect spiritual awareness.
A proper, Christian understanding of the nature of the human person is vital in such cases for at least two reasons: one, people suffering from Alzheimer’s might never come to such painful conclusions were they taught differently about spiritual experience and the interaction of the spirit and the soul; two, and more certainly, those seeking to alleviate the suffering of such patients would have a better understanding of what is actually occurring and be able to encourage and support accordingly. “Faced with psychological disorders such as depression and schizophrenia,” David Myers and Jeeves cautioned, “Christians had therefore best respond not with simplistic snap judgments (as Job’s friends did in response to his misery) but with compassion and understanding.”
The course of Alzheimer’s – as well as other diseases such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, and depression – provides a compelling illustration of the light that the general revelation of neuropsychology can shine on the nature of human spiritual experience. The neuropsychology derived from general revelation, which is subject to errant researchers and scientists, must always be shown to be in harmony with the inerrant and infallible special revelation of the Bible. If, however, neuropsychology can be shown to pass the test of being consistent with the Bible, then it can be employed as a valuable tool in ministry.
Therefore, the disposition of psychology in general and neuropsychology in particular is to render it a subordinate, supportive discipline that may be utilized to illuminate, elaborate, and explain the teaching of the Bible. Rather than compete with Scripture for content, however, it must be shown to be in agreement with and shed light on the reasons for the approach to Christian education and discipleship found in the Bible, especially the New Testament.
Chapter Two
A MODEL OF HUMAN NATURE
DERIVED FROM SPECIAL REVELATION
“What is man that You take thought of him?” – Ps 8.4
In developing a biblical, brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship, there is no question more important than that of the psalmist: what, ultimately, is man? To be wrong about the constitution and dynamic of the human person is to lay a foundation which will not facilitate the efforts of the would-be educator or discipler and will fail to support and sustain genuine Christian growth. The purpose of the present chapter, therefore, is to present a model of human nature as revealed in the Bible. The model explains the biblical teaching of the monistic nature of the human being while accounting for the immaterial aspects of the person.
The Unity of the Human Being
Conceptualizing the original intent of human existence as an indivisible unity rather than a partitioned entity may at first seem to fly in the face of the teaching of the Bible, especially the New Testament. As Erickson notes, the popular discussion concerning the constitution of the human person recently has focused on whether the individual is bipartite, comprised of body and soul, or tripartite, consisting of body, soul, and spirit; the bipartite approach regards soul and spirit to be indistinguishable while the tripartite perspective sees soul and spirit as distinct.
In developing an approach to Christian education and discipleship, however, the key argument is not between dichotomy and trichotomy, but is rather a statement of functional unity as opposed to divisible, segregated components. Practically speaking, the church’s partitioned conceptualization of human nature has been functionally schismatic, resulting in an approach to Christian education and discipleship that has tended to target only one dimension of the person. The focus has been upon the immaterial part – and particularly the mind – of the individual, treating the person as though the mind exists in isolation from the material aspect, i.e., the body. Such a distinction has contributed to the generally ineffective approach of the present-day church to Christian education and discipleship. Richards concluded that
. . . what we seem to be discovering is that the formal school setting itself defines certain relationships and certain kinds of sharing (of ideas, not feelings) as appropriate, and thus rules out the kinds of relationships which are significant for discipling! . . . As long as teachers and learners perceive themselves to be in school, they will not develop the kinds of relationships or the kinds of sharing which are important for discipling!
Despite the educational difficulties to which a partitioned anthropology has contributed, the popular divisibility debate continues: Are human beings dichotomous, consisting of body and soul? Or are they trichotomous, made up of body, soul and spirit? Scriptures have been employed to support both sides of the debate, making it even more important to determine what the Bible actually says about human nature in general and, in particular, the immaterial experiences of a person. Since such a partitioning of human nature (if found to be biblical) would have a significant impact on Christian education and discipleship, the matter must be examined closely. It will be discovered, however, that what the Bible teaches is that God did not design or intend humans to be partitioned, that such divisions are a result of the Fall, and that partitions are not a reflection of God’s original creation or intention for human beings.
The divisive impact of the Fall on human nature appears to have been largely overlooked by most contemporary theologians. Thus, Ryrie speaks for many in evangelicalism when he describes a human being as a “bipartite unity,” as though this arrangement reflected God’s original and ultimate intent for the human race. Ryrie states,
That man is bipartite in nature is undebatable. Man is a material and nonmaterial entity, the two aspects being distinguishable. Physical death is described as the separation of body and spirit (James 2.26). . . . Man is made up of two substances, material and immaterial. Each consists of a variety within. The many facets of the material and the many facets of the immaterial join to make up the whole of each person. Man is rich diversity in unity.
There are many verses that appear to teach divisions in the person; only a few will be examined here. A pre-Fall difference between a person’s soulish and spiritual natures seems to be indicated by Gen 2.7, which states that “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” If the difference were actual and not merely apparent, this would prove to be a determinative verse since it describes God’s original design for the human race. But Keil and Delitzsch argued that no distinction can be made between soul and spirit on the basis of this verse, adding that the human soul is unique from the souls of all other creatures in that it is a product of the direct action of God.
Moses’ instructions to the Israelites in Deu 4.29 and 6.5 to love God with all their heart, soul, and strength also would appear to support divisions within the human constitution. In commenting on the verses, however, many scholars see the Old Testament statement as a figure of speech which refers to the whole person rather than a treatise on parts of the person: it is viewed as “a specific Deuteronomic expression, implying the devotion of the whole being to God.” (It is difficult to imagine, if these were separate components in the person, how one might love God with their heart but not their soul.) Rather than teaching partitions, these verses (and others) support the unity (or monism) of the person.
In Mt 22, Christ echoes Moses: “You shall love the LORD your God will all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (v. 37). Gaebelein explains that from “the viewpoint of biblical anthropology, ‘heart,’ ‘soul,’ and ‘mind’ (v. 37) are not mutually exclusive but overlapping categories, together demanding our love for God to come from our whole person, our every faculty and capacity.” Nicoll agrees, adding that “the clauses referring to heart, soul, and mind are to be taken cumulatively, as meaning love to the uttermost degree, with all that is within us.”
About reading partitioning into Lk 1.46-47 – “And Mary said: ‘My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.’” – Robertson cautions:
One need not press unduly the difference between “soul” (psuche) . . . and “spirit” here. Bruce calls them synonyms in parallel clauses. Vincent argues that the soul is the principle of individuality while the spirit is the point of contact between God and mankind. It is doubtful, however, if the trichotomous theory of mankind (body, soul and spirit) is to be insisted on. It is certain that we have an inner spiritual nature for which various words are used.
Myers and Jeeves, reflecting on the presentation of basic human nature in the Old Testament, explain that “in the Hebrew view, we do not have nephesh (a soul), we are nephesh (living beings).” The simplicity of their statement should not be allowed to obfuscate its importance: they are declaring that the human soul is not distinguishable or even capable of existence apart from the body. Their position is that the notion of a separate, “disembodied soul” is not found in the Bible.
Murphey corrects the overstatement of Myers and Jeeves by introducing the biblical fact of temporary disembodiment. Quoting Robinson, she supports indivisible monism:
“ . . . the Hebrew idea of personality is that of an animated body, not (like the Greek) that of an incarnated soul.” . . . [Robinson] argues that the psychological terminology and ideas of the New Testament are largely continuous with the Old Testament in conceiving of the person as a unity rather than dualistically. However, he also says that the most important advance in the New Testament is the belief that the essential personality (whether called the psyche or the pneuma) survives bodily death. This soul or spirit may be temporarily disembodied, but it is not complete without the body, and its continued existence after bodily death is dependent upon God rather than a natural endowment of the soul.
Green, who also argues strongly for a monistic understanding of human nature, prefaces his statements by noting that “on the whole, Scripture is unconcerned with speculative questions about the nature of humanity, and tends toward a narrative presentation of its anthropology which does not allow for easy division of its concerns into topics.” Nevertheless, concerning the human person as a unity rather than an amalgamation of components, he states:
Popular Christianity has tended to assume anthropological duality, and some streams of biblical scholarship have contended for it, usually by insisting that the New Testament materials are dualistic in their understanding of the human person.
With respect to that biblical evidence, it is important methodologically to cultivate an awareness of the possibility that readers of Scripture have been led to various forms of anthropological dualism by, first, overlooking the possibility that biblical authors have employed conceptual and/or rhetorical distinctions as heuristic devices for speaking of what is in fact indivisible.
Green offers the following conclusions regarding the monistic nature of an individual:
(1) the New Testament is not as dualistic as the traditions of Christian theology and biblical interpretation have taught us to think, though enough conceptual glossolalia exists among New Testament witnesses for us to see how a dualist reading of human nature has developed among Christians; (2) nonetheless, the dominant view of the human person in the New Testament is that of ontological monism, with such notions as “escape from the body” or “disembodied soul” falling outside the parameters of New Testament thought. . .
Morey, in addressing the question of eternal punishment, disagrees with Green’s denial of a “disembodied soul” or spirit. “Instead of describing man as passing into nonexistence,” he says, “the Old Testament states that man becomes a disembodied spirit. The usage of the word ‘rephaim’ irrefutably establishes this truth.” He goes on to explain that
. . . when the body dies, man enters a new kind of existence and experience . . . once man dies, he too becomes a disembodied supradimensional energy being and is capable of thought and speech without need of a body.
Natural immortality, which views man as an autonomous and independent immortal being through some kind of innate power [is erroneous]. Man is always and absolutely dependent upon the Creator for this life as well as for the next life. Man should never be viewed as independent or autonomous. Life in this world and the next must always be viewed as a gift from God.
Importantly, Morey does not stop with an argument for partitions but continues on to make a determinative point: human partitions are abnormal, an unintended condition caused by the Fall.
While it is natural for angels to exist as spiritual entities, it is not natural for man to do so. Thus, man’s death is not normal but a terrible ripping apart of what was never intended to be separated. The spiritual and physical sides of man are separated by death. And his existence as a spiritual entity alone is unnatural. This is why the resurrection is necessary. Man was created as a physical-spiritual being and must ultimately be reconstituted in the same way. Death is an unnatural event and man’s subsequent disembodied state is an unnatural existence which only the resurrection will remedy.
Erickson stresses material and immaterial divisions of the person while allowing for unity: “. . . the biblical teaching on the nature of the human does not rule out the possibility of some type of compound character, or at least some sort of divisibility, within the human makeup.” He opts for a position he labels “conditional unity:”
According to this view, the normal state of a human is as a materialized unitary being. . . . This monistic condition can, however, be broken down, and at death it is, so that the immaterial aspect of the human lives on even as the material decomposes. At the resurrection, however, there will be a return to a material or bodily condition.
By so arguing for a “conditional unity,” Erickson makes the question of divisions presently and practically moot. His chief contribution to this discussion is the observation that prior to death the human person is functionally a unity, not a bipartite or tripartite being who functions at various times from different aspects of his or her personality.
The position assumed in this paper is a modification of the argument set forth by Morey as informed by the observations of the other writers. The human being is meant to be an indivisible unity, originally designed by God to function in the wholeness described by Green. The Fall, however, has created a situation – physical death – that necessitates an intermediate state of temporary divisibility or “conditional unity.” Given that partitions are a consequence of the Fall, it is imperative for Christian educators and disciplers to view human nature – and its functioning – as a unity. The soul and spirit certainly have unique descriptions and apparently individual attributes, but it is the interconnectedness and interdependence of the two – and especially the effect of the human spirit upon the soul – which generates the nature of the human person. Whether humans are dichotomous or trichotomous, therefore, is not the vital issue: the important point is the unity which constitutes the human being, created by the complex relationship which exists between all of the various metaphysical capacities. The existence of divisible aspects is a consequence of the Fall and should not be built upon or reinforced through traditional approaches to Christian education and discipleship.
Even though humans were not originally intended to be comprised of divisible material and immaterial aspects, there now exists distinguishable qualities within human nature: even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals an immaterial dimension to human existence. What is not as readily apparent is that the immaterial is as dependent upon the material as the material is upon the immaterial, and that even such transcendent capacities as heart, mind, spirit, and soul are – in this lifetime – inseparable from a person’s physical existence. Human nature and experience are embedded in human physicality: the human body without the spirit is dead (Jas 2.26); the human spirit without the body is an aberration. Human existence either requires a body of some kind, whether psuchikos or pneumatikos (1 Cor 15.44) , or depends upon God’s sustaining activity during the intermediate state following death. Anderson notes:
What provides assurance of continuity of the self through death and resurrection is not an immortal soul but the granting of immortality to the mortal human person as a body/soul unity, as having already taken place on our behalf through the resurrection of Christ. . . . When Scripture does affirm the stability and continuity of the self through death and resurrection, the basis is not that of an indestructible soul but the guarantee of the Spirit of God . . .
The failure to recognize that spirit, soul, and body – while not identical – were designed to be inseparable has led to much confusion. Reification has resulted in a sub-biblical notion of human nature: God gave Adam a spirit, but it was not a separate component given to the soul that He had created from the dust of the earth (Gen 2.7). God gave life to Adam, even as all human beings are given life, but when the person dies the life does not continue on in some independent, autonomous manner. The soul or spirit is sustained by God awaiting the resurrection of the body.
The argument for the innate unity of human beings recognizes that the Scriptures use a variety of terms to describe human nature. Jeeves sets the tone for the present paper’s study of the embedded, embodied nature of the person when he states that there are:
. . . two generalizations that can be made about the New Testament picture of man. First, like the Old Testament, it emphasizes the unity of man. Man is a psycho-physical or somato-psychic unity. Moreover, he is a unity in this present earthly life, and he will be a unity in some new form in the new heavens and the new earth to which he looks forward. However, being a unity does not mean that one cannot usefully distinguish between aspects of his nature – of his physical and psychological make-up.
The following cohesive, biblical model of the human person’s soul, heart and mind demonstrates that there is no need, as well as nothing to be gained, by viewing the human person as dichotomous or trichotomous, bipartite or tripartite, in this life. That the Bible speaks descriptively of such aspects is without question; to fashion such descriptions into categories or dimensions of human existence, however, is to be guilty of reification and to see entities that do not exist. In fact, an indivisible, embodied understanding of human immaterial nature is more consistent with the overall presentation of the person throughout the Bible and certainly with God’s original intent for humanity. “Christians who today embrace a monistic [or, as conceptualized here, embodied] account of humanity,” notes Green, “may do so as persons assured that this position actually places them more centrally within the biblical material than has usually been granted over the past two millennia.”
The purpose of the immediately following discussion is to present a model of human nature that has been drawn from and limited to the revealed word of God as contained in the Bible. An exhaustive treatment of such a critical subject was beyond the scope of this paper, although the results of such research provided the foundation for this model of biblical psychology. Once described, the model derived from biblical data will then be embedded or infused into a neurological understanding of human existence.
The Immaterial Constitution of Humans
In his gospel, Mark records our Lord’s summary of the greatest commandment:
The foremost is, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD our God is one Lord; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ – 12.29-31
In repeating a standard Jewish declaration of His day, Jesus uses figurative language to declare that the totality of a person’s being is to be involved in loving God: heart, soul, mind, and strength are not an exposition about a human’s immaterial components, but are rather meant to be an all-inclusive command regarding the extent of our worship and love. His words will provide the structure for the following discussion of the various aspects of human experience and human constitution. The embedded, embodied model of human nature presented here may be summarized as follows:
1. A human is not an incarnate soul and does not possess a soul, but simply is a soul;
2. The soul is embedded in and dependent on a body, whether soulish or spiritual;
3. The Fall has necessitated a future, intermediate, disembodied state that is sustained by God;
4. The human soul is a function of, dependent upon, and inseparable from the human body;
5. The human heart is a function of, dependent upon, and inseparable from the human soul;
6. The human mind is a function of, dependent upon, and inseparable from the human heart, and
7. The human spirit is given by God and in this lifetime is inseparable from the human being.
In other words, the immaterial experiences of human nature – soul, heart, and mind – do not exist as quantifiable or extractable entities within the human body, i.e., the brain. The soul consists of the entirety of all human capacities and functions, including the body; thus the statement that people do not have souls but are souls. The heart and mind, however, do not seem to be all encompassing: each is a particular constellation of activities and attributes that exist in the soul, and specifically in the brain. All that is in the mind also exists within the heart and soul; all that is within the heart is also found within the soul. There are some properties of soul, however, that are not described as being functions of the heart or mind. The human immaterial nature, therefore, is distributed throughout the soul and cannot be isolated or compartmentalized.
The following diagrams illustrate the relationship between the aspects of humanity’s immaterial nature.
[Figures and Diagrams not available on this blog.]
In Figure 2.1, the soul is depicted as the basic, all-encompassing description of human material and immaterial existence. Qualities and properties of the soul include, but are not limited to, the life principle in a person; the maintenance and regulation of bodily functions such as breathing, heart rate, appetite, and body temperature; the capacity to relate to God, and personality or personhood. The soul also includes everything attributed to the heart and mind.
(The relationship of the human soul and the human spirit is such that the two cannot, in this lifetime, be distinguished: the human spirit, as the source of physical life and energy, invigorates and shapes the soul; conversely, the human soul has a reciprocal effect upon the human spirit. The soul and spirit exist in human beings in a bottom-up and top-down connection: each affects and is affected by the other. Strictly speaking, the personality is a product of the spirit. [See below])
The study of the soul is the study of the psyche: the word psychology is, simply defined, soul (psyche) science (logos). The origin and development of the meanings of psyche warrant some consideration. Harder noted that psyche
. . . has three areas of meaning: (a) psyche in the sense of the impersonal basis of life, life itself; (b) the inward part of man; (c) an independent soul, in contrast to the body . . .
(a) In ancient Gk. literature, the soul is conceived as combined with the body. When it leaves the body, the body loses its life (Homer, Od. 14, 426) . . . Thus the soul can simply stand for life . . .
(b) psyche can refer to the inward part of man, his personality. Thus the soul can be equivalent to the person (Eur., OC 499) . . . If man is anything at all, he is soul (Plato, Alcibiades 1, 130a) . . . The actual power of the soul is seen first of all in the movement which it imparts to the body in which it lives (Plato, Laws 873a-b) . . . The soul is the seat of perception, of desire and pleasure, and of enjoyment (Aesch., Persae 841) . . . The properties of the soul are movement, observation, perception, and above all incorporeality (Aristotle, De Anima 405 b 11). Thus the soul can be assessed morally, according to its powers . . . The essential characteristic of the soul consists in the fact that it is in movement, that it can set itself in motion (Plato, Phaedrus 245e). Among all animate beings, man is the one in whom the deity has implanted the most powerful soul (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1, 9, 14) . . . The most important thing, however, as Socrates teaches (Plato, Apology 30b), is to cultivate or take care of . . . the soul, rather than wealth or happiness . . .
(c) The Homeric epics speak not only of the departure of the soul, i.e. the loss of life, but they also know something of an abode of souls. In this there is no attempt at a speculative or theoretical understanding of the soul in contradistinction to the body. Rather, we see the effect of the parapsychological experiences which were common among people of ancient times.
The appearances of psyche in the NT can be reduced to one of three categories: as referring to life, to persons, or to the metaphysical part of mankind. Most important for the purpose of developing a biblical psychology is the use of psyche to refer to the metaphysical dimension of mankind. This is its most frequent meaning and, rather than describing an actual manifestation of mankind, is used more as a collective noun that includes all of mankind’s metaphysical nature.
Like the Greek psyche, the Hebrew word nepesh, which is commonly translated as soul in the Old Testament, probably had the original meaning of “to breathe.” The activities of nepesh includes one’s hunger for food, the spiritual appetites, cravings for other people (including love), and will. “Since personal existence by its very nature involves drives, appetites, desires, will, nepesh denotes the ‘life’ of an individual.” In the Septuagint psyche is found more than 900 times and is usually used for nepesh.
The human soul includes the heart, mind, will, conscience, desires, and commitments; it does not include the human spirit, although the two are inexorably connected. Within mankind’s soul is to be found the image of God; it is in the soul that salvation and sanctification occur. The human soul is indivisible: without the presence of every manifestation, there is no soul: there is no such thing as a heartless or mindless soul. While the distinct functions of the human soul can be identified, they cannot be compartmentalized.
In summary, the word soul is used throughout the Bible to describe the essence of the human creature. At times it is used as a figure of speech, representing either a part or the entirety of a persons; on some occasions it stands for the life of a person, and it is sometimes employed in the phrase heart and soul to strengthen the force of a passage. Whenever soul refers to mankind’s metaphysical nature, it speaks of the deepest, most intimate, most essential part of that nature. None of the uses stands in isolation: when soul is used to describe a person’s life, it is simultaneously commenting on the whole of human character. Biblically, to speak of a person’s soul is to reveal that which makes them uniquely human. The soul is a broad, general term referring to the totality of mankind’s metaphysical nature. Soul is the essence of the human that is animated by and houses the life principle, is intimately related to God (or has the potential for such relationship), and is synonymous with an individual’s personality or personhood.
The Human Heart
Various functions and qualities of the human heart as described in the Bible are listed in Figure 2.2. The diffuse line surrounding the brief list of the heart illustrates that the human heart is not distinct from the soul although it is limited to a particular area of the soul, i.e., the brain. The abilities and capacities of the human heart also are attributed to the soul, which logically follows since the heart is thoroughly enmeshed and infused in the soul. To speak of the heart, therefore, is to also speak of the soul in which the heart is found.
The study of biblical psychology is to a large extent a study of the Scriptural concept of the heart. Throughout the Bible, the condition of a mankind’s heart is determinative in the nature of a person’s relationships with God, others, and self. The words translated heart in the Old and New testaments are the Hebrew leb and the Greek kardia, respectively. Specific uses of leb include the mind, inclinations, resolutions, determinations of the will, conscience, moral character, the seat of the appetites, the seat of emotions and passions, and the source of courage. Kardia is described as “the seat of physical, spiritual and mental life . . . as center and source of physical life . . . [and] the center and source of the whole inner life . . .” Specifically, heart refers to
the faculty of thought, of the thoughts themselves, of understanding, as the organ of natural and spiritual enlightenment . . . of the will and its decisions . . . of moral decisions, the moral life, of vices and virtues . . . of the emotions, wishes and desires . . . esp. also of love . . . of disposition . . . the human heart as the dwelling-place of heavenly powers and beings.
Regarding the Old Testament usage, Sorg observed that
Leb is the seat of man’s spiritual and intellectual life, the inner nature of man . . . the heart is the seat of emotions . . . of the understanding and knowledge, of rational forces and powers . . . as well as fantasies and visions . . . But folly and evil thoughts also operate in the heart. . . . The will originates in the heart, also the carefully weighed intention . . . and the decision which is ready to be put into effect.
Sorg summarized the NT writings on the heart:
. . . it more frequently denotes the seat of intellectual and spiritual life, the inner life in opposition to external appearance . . . The heart stands for man’s ego. It is simply the person (“the hidden person of the heart”, 1 Pet. 3:4). . . . The heart is that in man which is addressed by God . . .
Sin marks, dominates and spoils not only the physical manifestations of natural man, not only his thinking and willing, feeling and striving as individual elements, but also their source, man’s innermost being, his heart . . . Man without God lives under the power of sin, which has taken up its abode in his heart and from this vantage point enslaves the whole man.
God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5), examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4). . . . Just as the heart is the seat of faithlessness, it is also the seat of faith . . . conversion takes place in the heart and is thus a matter of the whole man . . .God bears his witness to man by sending into his heart the Spirit of his Son . . . When this Spirit takes up his dwelling in the heart, man is no longer a slave to sin, but a son and heir of God . . .
The heart of man, however, is the place not only where God arouses and creates faith. Here faith proves its reality in obedience and patience . . . Here the word of God is kept . . . Here the peace of Christ begins its rule . . . God’s grace strengthens and establishes the heart . . . The NT describes a heart directed unreservedly to God as a “pure heart” . . . This purity of heart is based solely on the fact that the blood of Christ cleanses it . . . and Christ dwells in it by faith . . .
That the heart is the major component of mankind’s soul is a clear teaching of the Old Testament also supported in the New. It has the capacity to relate to God (and is commanded to do so), contains both good and bad qualities, is the origin of emotions, and at times engages in emotional reasoning. The term is sometimes employed as a figure of speech, and also is host to a specialized group of activities which are called the mind.
The Human Mind
The capacities of the human mind are dispersed throughout the heart and soul. When the mind is described in the Bible, therefore, it is not an independent or isolated aspect of a person which is identified but rather a constellation of activities distributed throughout the heart. The mind, recognized only by its operations, is disseminated in the heart, which in turn is located in the brain of the soul, which is the person. All human immaterial aspects are embedded in and dependent upon the physical dimension, i.e., the body and, specifically, the brain of the human person. As will be demonstrated, this does not mean that human immaterial existence can be reduced to manifestations or properties of the brain; it is to say that human immaterial existence is embedded in and dependent on the brain.
It is important to remember, in the ensuing discussion of the mind, that what is being discussed is a specialized dimension of the heart. It must also be kept in mind that many of the activities of the mind are at the same time attributed to mankind’s heart. This is not a contradiction but merely reflects the interrelatedness of the mind and the heart, as well as the subjugation of the former to the latter: the mind is a property or produce of the heart.
The most general, nonspecific word in the New Testament for mind is the Greek word nous. It is used most frequently to describe the functions or functioning of the mind in general, including all its abilities. This does not preclude a narrower meaning for the word, but those meanings are captured and developed more precisely by other words employed by the New Testament writers. Nous, therefore, is the most inclusive term to describe the mind in all its various functions and capacities. Luke writes that Christ “opened their minds [nous] to understand the Scriptures” (Lk 24.45), which is likely a reference to all the abilities of the mind.
The word nous is also found in Rom 7.25, where Paul writes that “on the one hand I myself with my mind [nous] am serving the law of God, but on the other with my flesh the law of sin.” Later, he exhorts the Romans and all believers to “not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your nous” (Rom 12.2). In each verse, Paul is referring to the mind in its totality and is not singling out specific functions such as conscience, will, knowledge, memory, or determination. A slightly different use of nous may be found in 1 Cor 2.16 and Eph 4.17, where the word seems to refer not so much to the organ of thought but rather to the manner in which we think.
The Bible depicts the mind as (1) the seat of conscience, (2) the instrument of cognition which creates and recalls memories, and (3) the derivation of the will. It also portrays the mind as (4) capable of making suppositions, (5) considering information, (6) achieving spiritual understanding, (7) acquiring knowledge, and (8) focusing attention. Relevant functions are considered in the following discussion.
The purpose of the conscience is to assess and judge: it evaluates thoughts, feelings, or conduct as being either good or bad, moral or immoral, sufficient or insufficient, commendable or reprehensible, comforting or condemning. That the conscience is a fallible standard by which to evaluate one’s behavior is clear from various passages in the New Testament. Concerning this Brown noted that
Pierce contends that the term was an everyday Gk. word which in general had the morally bad negative sense of the pain that we feel when we do something wrong. Pierce suggests that the term came into the NT via the Corinthian church, where conscience was used as a catchword . . . This explains the absence of the term in the OT and the gospels and its widespread use in the Corinthian correspondence and later epistles. The Corinthians were appealing to conscience to justify their attitudes in the various burning issues of the day, in particular the practice of eating meat that had been offered to idols. Because some claimed that they could do this with a clear conscience, they argued that the practice was permissible. Paul condemns the idea that conscience alone is an invariable and infallible guide . . . A person may have a clear conscience because it is dead or inadequately educated. There are other factors in deciding the rightness and wrongness of actions . . . A clear conscience is no guarantee of being right . . . It serves as a sort of moral double-check on our actions. It operates largely on the basis of experience. It needs to be educated and carefully tended. But as such, it is very important . . .
The three principal New Testament words which are translated as “will” are boulomai, thelo, and thelema. As is the case with its two synonyms, the meaning of boulomai must be determined according to the context of the passage in which it is found. According to the New Testament, mankind has the ability to choose, desire, determine, intend, wish, purpose, and resolve; mankind’s ability to do these things is a function of the will. Equally important is the fact that the human will is affected by sin so that people cannot do what they wish or refrain from doing that which they do not desire.
One of the most important functions of the mind is to think or reason. Five Greek words are found in Scripture which describe mankind’s ability to judge and draw conclusions based on appearances. These words are dokeo, phaino, nomizo, hegeomai, and oiomai
[Dokeo] refers to the subjective judgment, which may or may not conform to the fact . . . [while phaino] refers to the actual external appearance, generally correct, but possibly deceptive . . .
[Hegeomai] and [nomizo] denote a belief resting not on one’s inner feeling or sentiment, but on the due consideration of external grounds, and the weighing and comparing of facts. [Dokeo] and [oiomai] on the other hand, describe a subjective judgment growing out of inclination or a view of facts in their relation to us. [Hegeomai] denotes a more deliberate and careful judgment than [nomizo]; [oiomai] a subjective judgment which has feeling rather than thought ([dokeo]) for its ground.
Another group of five Greek words refer to the mind’s ability to contemplate or deliberate things: analogizomai, enthumeomai, katanoeo, sunesis, and hegeomai. Analogizomai, occurring only once in the Bible (Heb 12.3), is a neutral activity which means to ponder. A slightly stronger word, enthumeomai means to bring to mind or deliberate, while katanoeo means to consider carefully or attentively, to perceive or understand. Sunesis and hegeomai reflect the deepest levels of consideration and understanding. Sunesis refers to a precise, careful apprehension of the nature of things; it is the critical faculty of how to evaluate anything which is encountered. Hegeomai refers to a consideration which is based on external facts and comes as a result of careful deliberation. It is the strongest and most frequently used by New Testament writers of the five words under this heading.
Three Greek words capture mankind’s ability to acquire spiritual understanding. Suniemi alludes to knowledge that is gained through the five senses and frequently involves moral or religious conduct. It was employed frequently by Jesus in matters of spiritual comprehension. Noeo, which is derived from the word nous, also depicts mankind’s capacity for spiritual understanding. Unlike suniemi, however, it generally refers to such comprehension apart from or independent of the senses. The final word illustrating mankind’s spiritual comprehension is dianoia, which connotes a thinking through, a mature thought process, and a reflective exercise of the heart. This capacity for thought can be either good (Mt 22.37) or bad (Eph 2.3). It is sometimes used to refer to the faculty that is renewed and enlightened by the Holy Spirit (Eph 1.18, Heb 8.10, 1 Jn 5.20).
Two words dominate the landscape of the New Testament with regard to mankind’s ability to know or learn: eido and ginosko are used over 800 times by the NT authors with reference to knowing and learning. Schutz highlighted their importance:
The words of the ginosko group . . . embrace the whole gamut of knowledge from knowing things to knowing persons. When this process results in an item or body of knowledge which may serve as a basis for further thought and action oida [eido] . . . to know, is used in parallel to the perf. of ginosko. Both contain the implication of certainty based on experience.
Eido or oida usually refers to what is known intuitively rather than through the senses and is generally not descriptive of first-hand knowledge. Eido sometimes infers a full knowledge in contrast to the progressive knowledge which is connoted in ginosko. The necessity of a connection between the person and the fact is even more clear in the word ginosko:
Phrases such as “know God’s decree” (Romans 1:32), “know the law” (Rom. 7:1), “know his will” (Rom. 2:18; Acts 22:14), do not imply a merely theoretical knowledge, but the recognition that it applies to man individually and demands his obedience. . . . [Paul] considered that the knowledge of God necessarily included proper glorification and gratitude. Hence, the heathen who rejected God reduced this knowledge to mere intellectual activity, and what they considered wisdom was in fact nothing but folly (Rom 1:22 f.). . . . knowledge in the NT involves the ready will of the man who receives it. Through disobedience, ingratitude and prevarication he can fail to appropriate it. . . . Knowledge in the sense of recognition is thus always linked with the practical behaviour of the one who knows and has to do with his way of life (Col. 1:9 f.) which should bring credit to the one known.
There are, however, passages where ginosko implies theological and theoretical knowledge . . . But even the knowledge of theological truths, e.g. of a particular teaching about baptism, has as its object obedience which expresses itself in life (Rom. 6:6). The express purpose of such knowledge mentioned is that “we might no longer be enslaved to sin.”
Schutz also commented on the progressive nature of the knowledge depicted by this word: “With ginosko there is always the implication of grasping the full reality and nature of the object under consideration. It is thus distinguished from mere opinion (dokeo) . . . which may grasp the object half-correctly, inadequately or even falsely.” One of the words included in the ginosko group is epiginosko, where the prefix intensifies the meaning of the word. It refers to clear, exact knowledge that powerfully influences the person in possession of it.
Two words of critical importance describe mankind’s ability to decide and invest psychologically in people or things. Logizomai, which is frequently translated “reckon” in the New Testament, and phroneo, which depicts the ability to direct thinking in a certain way, are significant in the formation of a biblical psychology. The former means “to put together with one’s mind, to count, to occupy oneself with reckonings or calculations . . . to reckon.” This capacity is even more apparent in the word phroneo, which means to set the mind on or to think in a certain manner. It implies “not only thinking but also the affections, will, or moral consideration . . . In the Scripture it is applied most commonly to the actions of the will and affections.”
Goetzmann, after demonstrating that the verb “acquires its proper meaning only from its immediate grammatical context,” continued his discussion regarding the importance of the word for Christian living:
It follows that, although the vb. as such has no particular content, there can nevertheless be no such thing as neutral thinking. Man is always aiming at something. Striving and endeavour are part of his nature. He must seek to possess, and one must be committed. This is the idea behind phronema, which occurs only in Rom. 8 and which is well translated by “setting the mind on” (cf. RXV). In the context of this chapter, which describes the new life in Christ as a life in the Spirit of God, Paul testifies that a man’s mind is set on certain things, and that what these are depends on whether one is in “the flesh” or in “the Spirit” . . . This passage makes it abundantly clear that the way he thinks is intimately related to the way he lives, whether in Christ, in the Spirit and by faith, or alternatively in the flesh, in sin and in spiritual death. A man’s thinking and striving cannot be seen in isolation from the overall direction of his life; the latter will be reflected in the aims which he sets himself.
This close inter-relationship between life and thought is echoed by the wide range of meanings attaching to phroneo. It expresses not merely an activity of the intellect, but also a movement of the will; it is both interest and decision at the same time.
The Spirit in the Human Being
The human spirit (and, for the believer, the Holy Spirit) is present everywhere in the mind, heart, and soul of the person. It is the spirit within a person which gives life, animates, reacts to external stimuli, and very often initiates thoughts, feelings, and behaviors within a person. If the soul may be likened to the wiring of a trillion-plus network of circuitry, then the spirit is that which provides energy or force, and makes all activity possible. Even as the wiring needs the current to accomplish any manner of work, and the current finds conveyance through the wires, so the soul depends upon the spirit for innervation and the spirit requires the soul for expression. In addition, the soul is acted upon and affected by the spirit, and the spirit is acted upon and affected by the soul. It is their interdependence and inseparable relationship that give rise to the two being used almost interchangeably at times in the Bible and described as having almost identical qualities. In short, the body without the spirit is dead and the spirit without the body is impotent to express itself.
It is the hypothesis of this paper that it is the spirit of a person that gives to each individual their unique personality. This is drawn from the nature of the hypostatic union: in becoming fully human – that is, assuming a soulish body – Jesus Christ nevertheless retained that personality which He possessed from all eternity. It was His divine Spirit, not his soul, that formed and determined His personality. In the same manner, it is the human spirit which determines the personality of the individual, even though the intimate interactions with the sinful, soulish body inevitably influence and limit the expression of the personality.
All human beings, barring significant neurological damage, begin with roughly the same brain, and the individual human spirit determines characteristics such as temperament, intelligence, and physical abilities. It is the human spirit’s interaction and cooperation with the Holy Spirit that results in sanctification. It is this intimate, enmeshed, indivisible nature of human experience that requires a wholistic approach to Christian education and discipleship. To attempt to influence just one facet of a person, e.g., the mind, is to ignore the intradependent reality of human existence. Such an approach results in the situation described by Richards:
The concept that all the dimensions of personality are linked is one that we would of course want to accept. The idea that we can change the equilibrium of the system, and cause change (growth, learning, or whatever one might want to term it), is, on the face of it, both reasonable and certain. Dissonance (the feeling of being out of harmony) is something that does seem to exist in us and something that is a cause for change.
But the assumption that attack on a single system element will produce desire change is not reasonable, nor certain! There are too many intervening variables. There are too many ways to isolate or modify the impact of isolated changes. . . . Intervention at a single point is more likely to lead to isolation of taught beliefs from the operating beliefs which actually function with other system elements in daily life.
Richards goes on to describe the all-too-familiar outcome of such a narrow approach to education and discipleship: Christians engaging in a variety of maneuverings designed escape personal application of a teaching or truth, thereby restoring a sense of balance in their emotional lives and resisting change. Because the whole person has not been involved in the learning process, change either does not occur or is negligible.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Chapter Three
GENERAL REVELATION REGARDING HUMAN NEUROLOGY
AND A COMPATIBLE MODEL OF CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to locate and embed immaterial experience and existence in the physical body, that is, in the human brain. The indivisible, monistic model presented in the preceding chapter sought to demonstrate biblically that each person is a unified whole, not intended to be divided into disparate components such as body, soul, heart, mind, will, or spirit. Following a basic survey of human neurology, the model developed here reconciles biblical teaching with neurological findings and presents an understanding of human nature that is psychological shaped by Scripture but also compatible with the neurosciences.
Both special and general revelation, therefore, are critical in the development of an approach to Christian education and discipleship that is, first and foremost, biblically based while at the same time consistent with the growing understanding of the neurosciences regarding the nature of the brain. As Caine and Caine remind us, those responsible for the education and discipleship of others must understand how learning takes place. To understand how learning takes place necessitates a prior understanding how the brain operates and learns.
In harmony with the Bible, neurology also presents the human person as a unity: what has been said previously about the indivisible nature of human existence from a biblical perspective is no less true in neurological studies of the brain. Although there are a variety of functions, systems, and regions in the human brain, it remains a whole that cannot be compartmentalized. Intradependence is as true for neurology as it is been shown to be for the biblical teaching on human nature.
A general overview of the brain is necessary before demonstrating how the biblical model presented above is compatible with neurology. An explanation of neural networks follows the overview and includes an exploration of communication between neurons in the brain. The perplexing issue of the mind-brain – or soul-brain – connection is presented before a synthesis of the data of both special and general revelation is offered. It is important to remember, however, that neurology only describes how the brain – or soul – works; neurology does not answer the questions of why humans are the way they are, or what the content of the soul is or should be. It is the Bible, not neurology or psychology, that provides ultimate answers for the proper existence and nature of the human being.
Overview of the Brain
The modest outer appearance of the brain, along with its relatively small size, conceals its near-unfathomable complexity. But more amazing yet is the fact that the maze of networks, columns, neurons, and other aspects of the brain reflect a divine creation unlike any other: it is only the human brain that is host to the image of God. To consider the workings of the human brain, therefore, is to explore what may be the pinnacle of God’s created, material order on this earth.
The human brain is an unimpressive-looking, three-pound mass of grayish-pink, jelly-like tissue consisting of 10 billion neurons (nerve cells); as many as 100 billion supportive, glue-like cells called neuroglia; vascular (blood-carrying) tissues, and various other tissues.
From the outside, the brain appears as three distinct but connected parts: the cerebrum (the Latin word for brain) – two large, almost symmetrical hemispheres; the cerebellum (“little brain”) – two smaller hemispheres located at the back of the cerebrum; and the brain stem – a central core that gradually becomes the spinal cord . . . Two other major parts of the brain, the thalamus and the hypothalamus, lie in the midline above the brain stem underneath the cerebellum.
The neocortex (also referred to as the cerebral cortex or cerebrum), which accounts for 85 percent of the brain’s weight, is the outermost part of the brain and gives to it its wrinkled, walnut-like appearance. The folds in the brain, caused by growth and the limitations of the skull, hide almost two-thirds of the brain’s surface: if the neocortex were unfolded, it would cover the floor of a room 16-ft square. In the various lobes of the cerebrum takes place most high-level brain functions. The frontal lobe of the neocortex, directly behind the forehead, is vital for speech (Broca’s Area), movement, planning, and mental representations; at the back of the head, the occipital lobe is involved in vision. The olfactory bulb, which produces the sense of smell, is tucked under the frontal lobe, behind and slightly above the nose. Just above the occipital lobe is the parietal lobe, which processes signals from sensations throughout the body; on each side of the head are temporal lobes that contain processes for memory, hearing, and, on the left temporal lobe, comprehension of language (Wernicke’s Area).
At the base of the skull, just below the occipital lobe, is the cerebellum. This “little brain” coordinates skilled, repetitive movements and maintains balance and posture. All motor activity, from driving a car to playing a piano concerto, depends on the cerebellum.
Underneath the cerebral cortex are the thalamus and hypothalamus: the former serves as a relay station for the senses while the latter is responsible for emotions and physical sensations, as well as serving as a junction for the nervous and endocrine systems.. The hypothalamus is also involved in such vital functions as eating, drinking, temperature regulation within the body, and sexual activity; it also is critical in memory and learning.
The multi-faceted brain stem connects the brain to the spinal cord and is responsible for sustaining the basic functions of life, such as breathing and blood pressure.
Through the medulla, at the lower end of the brainstem, pass all the nerves running between the spinal cord and the brain; in the pyramids of the medulla, many of these nerve tracts for motor signals cross over from one side to the other. Thus, the left brain controls movement on the right side of the body, and the right brain controls movement on the left side.
Neural Communication
There are two major types of brain cells: neuroglia and neurons. The neuroglia are perhaps ten times as numerous as neurons, but neurons are responsible for all electrochemical communication in the brain. Neuronal communication occurs either electrically or chemically: when transmitting an impulse within a neuron, it is conducted electrically; when communicating between neurons, across a gap, or synapse, it is done chemically. A single neuron may make as many as 10,000 connections with other neurons in the neocortex , resulting in the possibility of one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) such connections in the brain.
The signal originates in the cell body and travels electrically down the axon to the finger-like dendrites near the second neuron. Upon reaching the synapse, the electrical conduction stops and is transformed into a chemical transmission that is able to forward the message to the second neuron. The process continues within the brain until the message is completed.
Neurons do not exist in isolation, awaiting activation by a chemical transmission from another isolated neuron; rather, they exist in vast neural networks, columns, or schemas in the brain. A neural network is an affiliation or connection between millions of neighboring neurons that are involved in similar activities; schemas are networks or columns of networks throughout the brain which have established connections for processing information. The more frequently a schema is activated, the stronger the connection between neurons becomes. Such schema and networks are critical for memory and, especially, learning.
Arbib explains that, “according to schema theory, our minds comprise a richly interconnected network of schemas.” The existence of schemas provides individuals with a mental system or grid through which to experience the world: if one’s experience of the world is consistent with existing schemas in the brain, then the information is assimilated and the schemas are reinforced. If, however, one’s experience is not consistent with existing schemas, then accommodation takes place: the particular schema – and all schemas connected with it – is adjusted to allow for the new, previously inconsistent information.
To make sense of any given situation we call upon hundreds of schemas in our current schema assemblage. Our lifetime of experience might be encoded in a personal “encyclopedia” of hundreds of thousands of schemas. As we act, we perceive; as we perceive, so we act. Perception is not passive, like a photograph. It is active, as our current schemas determine what we take from the environment.
Schemas or neural networks, therefore, are the building blocks of mental activity, as well as the foundation and key for learning.
The Mind-Brain Connection
The position taken in the present work concerning the nature of the mind-brain connection is nonreductive physicalism. It is physicalism in that all of human nature and experience is understood to be dependent upon human physical existence: apart from the temporary state after death (wherein existence depends upon the special activity of God), there is no sense of personhood apart from connection with the physical body. The position is nonreductive in that the immaterial aspect of human nature cannot be explained by or reduced to physical properties of the body: the activity and properties of the neurons firing in the brain do not explain the existence of such experiences such as faith, hope, or love. In this view, there is more to being a person than can be explained by physical attributes or activities.
What constitutes the human brain is easy to describe: the neurological section above identified what the brain is, how it operates, and how it contributes to human existence. It is not so evident, however, what the mind is. Negatively speaking, the mind or soul is that dimension of human existence which cannot be explained by the physiology of the brain. A pair of analogies and a brief example highlight the difference between mind and brain. Nobel laureate Roger Sperry has stated, “The meaning of the message will not be found in the chemistry of the ink;” in the same way, what it means to be a person cannot be explained simply by looking at neurology. Myers and Jeeves offer their own analogy from nature:
An ant colony, for example, is a sort of intelligent organism. It “knows” how to grow, how to move, how to build. This intelligence is not reducible to the individual ants; a solitary ant, with only a few neurons strung together, is a witless, thoughtless creature. Yet from the interactions of a dense mass of thousands of ants a collective intelligence somehow emerges. There is nothing extra plugged into the ants to create this intelligence, yet to look no further than the individual ants would be to miss the miracle of the living colony.
An example also helps explain the difference. It is the brain and its neurological networks that allow the reader of these words to see the images on the page; it is the mind, however, that provides the reader with the ability to make sense of the words, to follow the reasoning, and to agree or disagree with what is being said. Neurology cannot explain comprehension, or even the lack thereof.
That there is a connection between the mind and the brain is well-established. The previously described tragedy of Alzheimer’s Disease illustrates the link, as does the remarkable story of an accident in 1848 involving a young man named Phineas Gage:
It was the summer in New England. A twenty-five-year-old foreman working for the Rutland and Burlington Railroad Company and described by his employers as “most efficient and capable” was preparing to detonate an explosion in order to remove rock obstructing the path of the railroad. At a crucial moment he looked away when someone called over his right shoulder. It was only a brief instant but Phineas Gage turned back and put in his iron bar to begin tamping the powder, not realizing that his assistant had not poured in the sand beforehand. A deafening explosion and the bar, manufactured to Gage’s exact specifications – weighing 13 1/4 pounds, 3 feet 7 inches long, and tapered to a point 1/4 inch in diameter – entered Gage’s left cheek, pierced his skull, traversed the front of his brain, and exited at a high speed through the top of his head. The rod landed more than a hundred feet away, covered with blood and brains.
The detailed report of the event says that Gage was stunned! Amazingly he was still conscious and made a remarkable recovery. He became a notorious case, appearing in circuses. His employers described how, before the accident he was efficient and capable, but afterward his personality had clearly undergone a dramatic change. Not only was he feckless and irresponsible, his likes and dislikes, his aspirations, his ethics and morals, were altered. Such findings suggested that it was not just mental events that were linked to brain structures but that there may be systems in the human brain which, if damaged, may alter the personal and social dimensions of normal life. Antonio Damasio, in his book Descartes’ Error, concluded his description of Gage’s experience with the provocative question, “Is it fair to say that his soul was diminished, or that he had lost his soul?” Damasio further documented with contemporary cases the observations made on Gage, demonstrating that it was not a unique observation.
As Damasio’s question implies, the reality and experience of being a person is rooted in human physicality and specifically in the human brain. But the brain, while necessary for the existence of the mind or soul, is not sufficient to explain what it means to be a person. Clayton explains that a
living body and a functioning brain are necessary conditions for personhood, yet the wide discrepancy in the “logic” of the vocabularies suggest that they are not sufficient conditions. Personhood is not fully translatable into “lower-“level” terms [that is, properties of the brain]; persons experience causal and phenomenological properties . . . that are uniquely personal.
This, then, is the position of nonreductive physicalism. The subjective experience of being a person, which is a property of the mind and not the brain, is embedded in and dependent on the physical brain: it is affected by changes in the brain and abides by physical laws and principles. But the relationship is also reciprocal: even as the soul/mind is affected by the brain, so is the brain affected by the soul. Thus, there is “top-down” causation in the person: while the human being reacts and responds to the influences of the brain, the person has the additional ability to intend behavior and to modify behavior that may have begun in response to a signal to the brain; this ability is separate from and independent of the brain in terms of causation. It might be said that the human being can be explained in terms of brain activity and properties, but the human person cannot be explained on a neurological basis.
Nonreductive physicalism is not the only position possible, however, as the differing views of three Nobel laureates illustrate.
Francis Crick, a reductionist materialist [physicalist], had no doubts that “You are nothing but a pack of neurons,” and that “you are . . . no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. . . . By contrast, Sir John Eccles, from his earliest writings to his most recent publications, has advocated a strong dualist view. . . . Roger Sperry, like Crick and Eccles, a Nobel laureate in Medicine and Physiology, but having worked more closely with problems at the coal face in understanding brain and mind, adopted a view diametrically opposed to that of Francis Crick’s “nothing buttery,” and was unwilling to accept the form of dualism advocated by Eccles. Sperry held a nonreductive physicalist view. . . .
The nonreductive physicalism position is the only one of the three positions that is compatible with both neurology and theology. Those who would hold to a purely physical explanation of personhood argue for a closed system wherein there is no room or need for a mind or soul, thereby eliminating the need for special revelation (theology). They have the additional burden of explaining the person or mind, which they attempt to avoid by arguing that in the future enough will be known about the brain to account for such immaterial aspects. Those who would maintain a dualistic view of the human person, i.e., soul or mind are nonphysical aspects of human existence that are independent of physical nature, are in conflict with the findings of general revelation (neurology) as well as a viable biblical anthropology. Clayton argues that nonreductive physicalism
offers the philosophically most adequate framework for conceptualizing mental properties in human persons. Does [nonreductive physicalism] also offer a view of the person that is more compatible with theology than does [the physicalist position]? If true, would it represent, from the standpoint of theology, a better bridge principle? Clearly the answer is yes. . . .
To defend [a nonreductive physicalism] account of the self is not to turn science into metaphysics. Instead, it is to acknowledge that the natural world is vastly more complicated and more subtle than physicalism can ever grasp.
A Synthesis of Special and General Revelations
A synthesis of the data from both special and general revelations is at the same time obvious and in need of explanation: to locate the immaterial aspects of the person – soul, heart, and mind – within the constructs of neurology is relatively simple, but the implications of such a union are not so readily apparent. This section will embed the biblical model of a soul-heart-mind monism into the neurological architecture and activity that has been discussed previously. It will also propose a compatible role and activity of the human spirit – and Holy Spirit in the case of Christians – in neural activity, and suggest how the process of sanctification takes place. The importance of this model for Christian education and discipleship will be evident.
As alluded to above, to place the soul-heart-mind model of human immaterial nature within the brain is not difficult. The activity of the human soul, heart, mind, and even spirit depends upon the brain’s proper organization and functioning, from the fundamental level of individual neurons to the complex organization of neural networks and schemas. The immaterial soul is embedded in the material networks, columns, and schemas that exist within the brain. These neural structures are formed in part by genetically determined factors (such as intelligence and temperament) and in part by the person’s experiences in life, including educational opportunities, nutrition, trauma, and illness. The soul is also shaped by the unique attributes and qualities of the human spirit as it not only gives life to the soul but disposition: the spirit is the determining agent in what networks, columns, and schemas are created in the brain. (The great majority of this activity is undoubtedly accomplished by the spirit without the person being aware of or remembering it.)
The soul is the only dimension of the person that is directly involved in both material and immaterial realms. Not only is the soul embedded in the brain, but it also is involved in the maintenance of life in the body. The soul is connected to the person’s body by virtue of the fact that human beings are souls, and it exists as immaterial nature because it is the all-inclusive, all-encompassing term for heart, mind and – at times – spirit. To think of soul in relation to human material existence is to regard it as synonymous with the body and, especially, the brain. Thus, some aspects of the soul’s functioning can be reduced to the activities of the brain, e.g., regulation of body temperature, breathing, or sleep. The immaterial dimension of the soul, however, cannot be explained on the basis of physical properties or activities in the body or brain. The soul, along with the heart and mind, is embedded in and restricted to the brain, but cannot be defined or explained by neural activity alone.
At its most basic level, the human spirit is the life energy that animates the material and immaterial aspects of the soul. The human spirit, in its capacity as the source of physical life in the person, is given and made possible by God, as is reflected in Ezek 37.1-10:
The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, You know." Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.’ "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, ‘Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. ‘I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD.’" So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. Then He said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life."‘" So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
This is clearly an apocalyptic vision that the prophet is experiencing, but there is no reason to believe that the depiction of the role of “breath” or “spirit” is not true. While the word used here for breath (ruah) is not the same as the one used in Gen 2.7 (nasham), this word is frequently used in conjunction with soul (nephesh in the Old Testament) and seems to be synonymous. It generally refers to the breath of life. But ruah also is used of the Spirit of God and, when descriptive of His actions, is consider as the source of life: ruah “in God’s hand is the breath . . . of all mankind.”
The human spirit is more than just the life principle in a person: it is that which makes the human person a person, generating the nephesh or psuche. As Archer explains,
ruah is the principle of man’s rational and immortal life, and possesses reason, will, and conscience. It imparts the divine image to man, and constitutes the animating dynamic which results in man’s nephesh as the subject of personal life. The distinctive personality of the individual inheres in his nephesh, the seat of his emotions and desires. ruah is life-power, having the ground of its vitality in itself; the nephesh has a more subjective and conditioned life.
It is within the human spirit, therefore, that the person originates. The spirit animates the material and immaterial aspects of the soul and is so intimately interconnected with them as to be practically inseparable. The image of God resides in the human spirit and is reflected in the attributes and activities of the soul, through which the spirit manifests itself. As stated before, except for the sin-necessitated intermediate state following death, the human spirit requires the human soul – both materially and immaterially – for existence.
It is the activity of the human spirit in the brain that brings the material and immaterial aspects of the person together. Whether initiating neural activity or modifying a bodily-derived process, it is the spirit that superintends neural activity and produces networks, columns, and schemas in the brain. Not only does the spirit provide the initial and continuing energy for a neural activity, it also shapes and determines the direction of the electrical and chemical transmissions. An understanding of this role of the human spirit – and Holy Spirit – is important for those attempting to provide brain-based education and discipleship.
A specific neural activity begins when a stimulus is detected by the brain. This stimulus may be internal or external, conscious or unconscious. As the reader’s eye looks at this page, for example, light is reflected and visual stimulation occurs. The neural stimulus begins with the perceiving of the eye, but the image is immediately transformed into the electrochemical “language of the brain.” The brain processes the information at numerous levels, allowing the eye to “see” the letters and words on the page while simultaneously giving cognitive meaning to the words and eliciting an emotional response. As the process continues throughout the brain at all its various levels, the human spirit (or Holy Spirit) superintends the activity, causing it to follow pre-existing neural schemas or, in the case of learning and sanctification, to make new connections and alter the existing schemas.
In this view, the process of sanctification is seen as the activity of the Holy Spirit as He oversees and, at times, initiates brain activity. Conforming believers to the image of Christ involves changing existing schemas, creating new ones, and allowing sinful schemas to slowly atrophy. These sinful schemas are what the New Testament refers to as “the flesh” which, when energized by the human spirit, wars with the Holy Spirit within the believer (Gal 5.16-17). These sinful, fleshly schemas are never eradicated from the brain, however, leaving the Christian with the possibility of further sin. Perhaps one of the reasons that a new body is required at the resurrection of believers is that the physical brain so effectively resists change and schemas are so enduring.
The exact relationship of the human spirit to the Holy Spirit in the Christian is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures and can only be proposed, not proven. An analogy from the physical world, however, may shed light on the model proposed here. Although somewhat crude, the analogy captures the essence of the proposed relationship that exists between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit within a Christian.
The human spirit may be compared to one-half of the reproductive material (whether sperm or egg) required for the creation of human life. Prior to joining with the other half, it possesses temporary life and lives for a period of time on its own, not requiring union. If it does not merge with the other half of the reproductive material, it will eventually die and be eliminated from the body; at that time, the lack of union or separation from the other half of the reproductive material becomes a permanent state. Similarly, the human spirit has life: it, too, continues on in the person for a period of time and does not require union with the other half, i.e., the Holy Spirit. In this condition, the human spirit possesses life but is said to be spiritually dead (Eph 2.1, 5; Col 2.13) and is only made alive through union with the Holy Spirit (Rom 8.10; Eph 2.5; Col 2.13). At physical death the unconnected human spirit suffers a worse fate than that of the reproductive material: its lack of union with the Holy Spirit becomes a permanent condition and it lives on forever consciously separated from God.
If the half of reproductive material does merge with the other half, however, a remarkable series of events is set in motion. The fusing of the two results in new life, at first in the womb but ultimately in a new environment, i.e., the physical world. In the same way, when the person exercises saving faith in the substitutionary, penal propitiation of Jesus Christ, the human spirit is joined with the Holy Spirit and new life is created – the person is “born again,” “regenerated,” and “made alive in Christ” (1 Pet 1.3, 23; Tit 3.5; 1 Cor 15.22). The relationship between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit at this point is analogous to the combining of the chromosomes and DNA in human reproduction. The critical difference is that neither the human spirit nor the Holy Spirit lose their unique personality or the ability to initiate and maintain brain activity. In the Christian who is “led by the Spirit of God” (Rom 8.14), the human spirit is in submission to the Holy Spirit and allows Him to accomplish His work. Those who are “according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh” (Rom 8.5) and frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit in transforming their minds (brains).
For the Christian educator, the impact of this explanation of Christian growth is both enlightening and powerful. Even a small amount of insight into the functioning of the brain, coupled with an understanding of biblical anthropology and psychology, provides the foundation for the approach to be developed in the next chapter. Apart from such an account, the methods and changes presented would appear to be random and arbitrary. A grasp of the nature of human spiritual experience, however, makes the approach to Christian education and discipleship not only sensible, but necessary.
GENERAL REVELATION REGARDING HUMAN NEUROLOGY
AND A COMPATIBLE MODEL OF CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to locate and embed immaterial experience and existence in the physical body, that is, in the human brain. The indivisible, monistic model presented in the preceding chapter sought to demonstrate biblically that each person is a unified whole, not intended to be divided into disparate components such as body, soul, heart, mind, will, or spirit. Following a basic survey of human neurology, the model developed here reconciles biblical teaching with neurological findings and presents an understanding of human nature that is psychological shaped by Scripture but also compatible with the neurosciences.
Both special and general revelation, therefore, are critical in the development of an approach to Christian education and discipleship that is, first and foremost, biblically based while at the same time consistent with the growing understanding of the neurosciences regarding the nature of the brain. As Caine and Caine remind us, those responsible for the education and discipleship of others must understand how learning takes place. To understand how learning takes place necessitates a prior understanding how the brain operates and learns.
In harmony with the Bible, neurology also presents the human person as a unity: what has been said previously about the indivisible nature of human existence from a biblical perspective is no less true in neurological studies of the brain. Although there are a variety of functions, systems, and regions in the human brain, it remains a whole that cannot be compartmentalized. Intradependence is as true for neurology as it is been shown to be for the biblical teaching on human nature.
A general overview of the brain is necessary before demonstrating how the biblical model presented above is compatible with neurology. An explanation of neural networks follows the overview and includes an exploration of communication between neurons in the brain. The perplexing issue of the mind-brain – or soul-brain – connection is presented before a synthesis of the data of both special and general revelation is offered. It is important to remember, however, that neurology only describes how the brain – or soul – works; neurology does not answer the questions of why humans are the way they are, or what the content of the soul is or should be. It is the Bible, not neurology or psychology, that provides ultimate answers for the proper existence and nature of the human being.
Overview of the Brain
The modest outer appearance of the brain, along with its relatively small size, conceals its near-unfathomable complexity. But more amazing yet is the fact that the maze of networks, columns, neurons, and other aspects of the brain reflect a divine creation unlike any other: it is only the human brain that is host to the image of God. To consider the workings of the human brain, therefore, is to explore what may be the pinnacle of God’s created, material order on this earth.
The human brain is an unimpressive-looking, three-pound mass of grayish-pink, jelly-like tissue consisting of 10 billion neurons (nerve cells); as many as 100 billion supportive, glue-like cells called neuroglia; vascular (blood-carrying) tissues, and various other tissues.
From the outside, the brain appears as three distinct but connected parts: the cerebrum (the Latin word for brain) – two large, almost symmetrical hemispheres; the cerebellum (“little brain”) – two smaller hemispheres located at the back of the cerebrum; and the brain stem – a central core that gradually becomes the spinal cord . . . Two other major parts of the brain, the thalamus and the hypothalamus, lie in the midline above the brain stem underneath the cerebellum.
The neocortex (also referred to as the cerebral cortex or cerebrum), which accounts for 85 percent of the brain’s weight, is the outermost part of the brain and gives to it its wrinkled, walnut-like appearance. The folds in the brain, caused by growth and the limitations of the skull, hide almost two-thirds of the brain’s surface: if the neocortex were unfolded, it would cover the floor of a room 16-ft square. In the various lobes of the cerebrum takes place most high-level brain functions. The frontal lobe of the neocortex, directly behind the forehead, is vital for speech (Broca’s Area), movement, planning, and mental representations; at the back of the head, the occipital lobe is involved in vision. The olfactory bulb, which produces the sense of smell, is tucked under the frontal lobe, behind and slightly above the nose. Just above the occipital lobe is the parietal lobe, which processes signals from sensations throughout the body; on each side of the head are temporal lobes that contain processes for memory, hearing, and, on the left temporal lobe, comprehension of language (Wernicke’s Area).
At the base of the skull, just below the occipital lobe, is the cerebellum. This “little brain” coordinates skilled, repetitive movements and maintains balance and posture. All motor activity, from driving a car to playing a piano concerto, depends on the cerebellum.
Underneath the cerebral cortex are the thalamus and hypothalamus: the former serves as a relay station for the senses while the latter is responsible for emotions and physical sensations, as well as serving as a junction for the nervous and endocrine systems.. The hypothalamus is also involved in such vital functions as eating, drinking, temperature regulation within the body, and sexual activity; it also is critical in memory and learning.
The multi-faceted brain stem connects the brain to the spinal cord and is responsible for sustaining the basic functions of life, such as breathing and blood pressure.
Through the medulla, at the lower end of the brainstem, pass all the nerves running between the spinal cord and the brain; in the pyramids of the medulla, many of these nerve tracts for motor signals cross over from one side to the other. Thus, the left brain controls movement on the right side of the body, and the right brain controls movement on the left side.
Neural Communication
There are two major types of brain cells: neuroglia and neurons. The neuroglia are perhaps ten times as numerous as neurons, but neurons are responsible for all electrochemical communication in the brain. Neuronal communication occurs either electrically or chemically: when transmitting an impulse within a neuron, it is conducted electrically; when communicating between neurons, across a gap, or synapse, it is done chemically. A single neuron may make as many as 10,000 connections with other neurons in the neocortex , resulting in the possibility of one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) such connections in the brain.
The signal originates in the cell body and travels electrically down the axon to the finger-like dendrites near the second neuron. Upon reaching the synapse, the electrical conduction stops and is transformed into a chemical transmission that is able to forward the message to the second neuron. The process continues within the brain until the message is completed.
Neurons do not exist in isolation, awaiting activation by a chemical transmission from another isolated neuron; rather, they exist in vast neural networks, columns, or schemas in the brain. A neural network is an affiliation or connection between millions of neighboring neurons that are involved in similar activities; schemas are networks or columns of networks throughout the brain which have established connections for processing information. The more frequently a schema is activated, the stronger the connection between neurons becomes. Such schema and networks are critical for memory and, especially, learning.
Arbib explains that, “according to schema theory, our minds comprise a richly interconnected network of schemas.” The existence of schemas provides individuals with a mental system or grid through which to experience the world: if one’s experience of the world is consistent with existing schemas in the brain, then the information is assimilated and the schemas are reinforced. If, however, one’s experience is not consistent with existing schemas, then accommodation takes place: the particular schema – and all schemas connected with it – is adjusted to allow for the new, previously inconsistent information.
To make sense of any given situation we call upon hundreds of schemas in our current schema assemblage. Our lifetime of experience might be encoded in a personal “encyclopedia” of hundreds of thousands of schemas. As we act, we perceive; as we perceive, so we act. Perception is not passive, like a photograph. It is active, as our current schemas determine what we take from the environment.
Schemas or neural networks, therefore, are the building blocks of mental activity, as well as the foundation and key for learning.
The Mind-Brain Connection
The position taken in the present work concerning the nature of the mind-brain connection is nonreductive physicalism. It is physicalism in that all of human nature and experience is understood to be dependent upon human physical existence: apart from the temporary state after death (wherein existence depends upon the special activity of God), there is no sense of personhood apart from connection with the physical body. The position is nonreductive in that the immaterial aspect of human nature cannot be explained by or reduced to physical properties of the body: the activity and properties of the neurons firing in the brain do not explain the existence of such experiences such as faith, hope, or love. In this view, there is more to being a person than can be explained by physical attributes or activities.
What constitutes the human brain is easy to describe: the neurological section above identified what the brain is, how it operates, and how it contributes to human existence. It is not so evident, however, what the mind is. Negatively speaking, the mind or soul is that dimension of human existence which cannot be explained by the physiology of the brain. A pair of analogies and a brief example highlight the difference between mind and brain. Nobel laureate Roger Sperry has stated, “The meaning of the message will not be found in the chemistry of the ink;” in the same way, what it means to be a person cannot be explained simply by looking at neurology. Myers and Jeeves offer their own analogy from nature:
An ant colony, for example, is a sort of intelligent organism. It “knows” how to grow, how to move, how to build. This intelligence is not reducible to the individual ants; a solitary ant, with only a few neurons strung together, is a witless, thoughtless creature. Yet from the interactions of a dense mass of thousands of ants a collective intelligence somehow emerges. There is nothing extra plugged into the ants to create this intelligence, yet to look no further than the individual ants would be to miss the miracle of the living colony.
An example also helps explain the difference. It is the brain and its neurological networks that allow the reader of these words to see the images on the page; it is the mind, however, that provides the reader with the ability to make sense of the words, to follow the reasoning, and to agree or disagree with what is being said. Neurology cannot explain comprehension, or even the lack thereof.
That there is a connection between the mind and the brain is well-established. The previously described tragedy of Alzheimer’s Disease illustrates the link, as does the remarkable story of an accident in 1848 involving a young man named Phineas Gage:
It was the summer in New England. A twenty-five-year-old foreman working for the Rutland and Burlington Railroad Company and described by his employers as “most efficient and capable” was preparing to detonate an explosion in order to remove rock obstructing the path of the railroad. At a crucial moment he looked away when someone called over his right shoulder. It was only a brief instant but Phineas Gage turned back and put in his iron bar to begin tamping the powder, not realizing that his assistant had not poured in the sand beforehand. A deafening explosion and the bar, manufactured to Gage’s exact specifications – weighing 13 1/4 pounds, 3 feet 7 inches long, and tapered to a point 1/4 inch in diameter – entered Gage’s left cheek, pierced his skull, traversed the front of his brain, and exited at a high speed through the top of his head. The rod landed more than a hundred feet away, covered with blood and brains.
The detailed report of the event says that Gage was stunned! Amazingly he was still conscious and made a remarkable recovery. He became a notorious case, appearing in circuses. His employers described how, before the accident he was efficient and capable, but afterward his personality had clearly undergone a dramatic change. Not only was he feckless and irresponsible, his likes and dislikes, his aspirations, his ethics and morals, were altered. Such findings suggested that it was not just mental events that were linked to brain structures but that there may be systems in the human brain which, if damaged, may alter the personal and social dimensions of normal life. Antonio Damasio, in his book Descartes’ Error, concluded his description of Gage’s experience with the provocative question, “Is it fair to say that his soul was diminished, or that he had lost his soul?” Damasio further documented with contemporary cases the observations made on Gage, demonstrating that it was not a unique observation.
As Damasio’s question implies, the reality and experience of being a person is rooted in human physicality and specifically in the human brain. But the brain, while necessary for the existence of the mind or soul, is not sufficient to explain what it means to be a person. Clayton explains that a
living body and a functioning brain are necessary conditions for personhood, yet the wide discrepancy in the “logic” of the vocabularies suggest that they are not sufficient conditions. Personhood is not fully translatable into “lower-“level” terms [that is, properties of the brain]; persons experience causal and phenomenological properties . . . that are uniquely personal.
This, then, is the position of nonreductive physicalism. The subjective experience of being a person, which is a property of the mind and not the brain, is embedded in and dependent on the physical brain: it is affected by changes in the brain and abides by physical laws and principles. But the relationship is also reciprocal: even as the soul/mind is affected by the brain, so is the brain affected by the soul. Thus, there is “top-down” causation in the person: while the human being reacts and responds to the influences of the brain, the person has the additional ability to intend behavior and to modify behavior that may have begun in response to a signal to the brain; this ability is separate from and independent of the brain in terms of causation. It might be said that the human being can be explained in terms of brain activity and properties, but the human person cannot be explained on a neurological basis.
Nonreductive physicalism is not the only position possible, however, as the differing views of three Nobel laureates illustrate.
Francis Crick, a reductionist materialist [physicalist], had no doubts that “You are nothing but a pack of neurons,” and that “you are . . . no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. . . . By contrast, Sir John Eccles, from his earliest writings to his most recent publications, has advocated a strong dualist view. . . . Roger Sperry, like Crick and Eccles, a Nobel laureate in Medicine and Physiology, but having worked more closely with problems at the coal face in understanding brain and mind, adopted a view diametrically opposed to that of Francis Crick’s “nothing buttery,” and was unwilling to accept the form of dualism advocated by Eccles. Sperry held a nonreductive physicalist view. . . .
The nonreductive physicalism position is the only one of the three positions that is compatible with both neurology and theology. Those who would hold to a purely physical explanation of personhood argue for a closed system wherein there is no room or need for a mind or soul, thereby eliminating the need for special revelation (theology). They have the additional burden of explaining the person or mind, which they attempt to avoid by arguing that in the future enough will be known about the brain to account for such immaterial aspects. Those who would maintain a dualistic view of the human person, i.e., soul or mind are nonphysical aspects of human existence that are independent of physical nature, are in conflict with the findings of general revelation (neurology) as well as a viable biblical anthropology. Clayton argues that nonreductive physicalism
offers the philosophically most adequate framework for conceptualizing mental properties in human persons. Does [nonreductive physicalism] also offer a view of the person that is more compatible with theology than does [the physicalist position]? If true, would it represent, from the standpoint of theology, a better bridge principle? Clearly the answer is yes. . . .
To defend [a nonreductive physicalism] account of the self is not to turn science into metaphysics. Instead, it is to acknowledge that the natural world is vastly more complicated and more subtle than physicalism can ever grasp.
A Synthesis of Special and General Revelations
A synthesis of the data from both special and general revelations is at the same time obvious and in need of explanation: to locate the immaterial aspects of the person – soul, heart, and mind – within the constructs of neurology is relatively simple, but the implications of such a union are not so readily apparent. This section will embed the biblical model of a soul-heart-mind monism into the neurological architecture and activity that has been discussed previously. It will also propose a compatible role and activity of the human spirit – and Holy Spirit in the case of Christians – in neural activity, and suggest how the process of sanctification takes place. The importance of this model for Christian education and discipleship will be evident.
As alluded to above, to place the soul-heart-mind model of human immaterial nature within the brain is not difficult. The activity of the human soul, heart, mind, and even spirit depends upon the brain’s proper organization and functioning, from the fundamental level of individual neurons to the complex organization of neural networks and schemas. The immaterial soul is embedded in the material networks, columns, and schemas that exist within the brain. These neural structures are formed in part by genetically determined factors (such as intelligence and temperament) and in part by the person’s experiences in life, including educational opportunities, nutrition, trauma, and illness. The soul is also shaped by the unique attributes and qualities of the human spirit as it not only gives life to the soul but disposition: the spirit is the determining agent in what networks, columns, and schemas are created in the brain. (The great majority of this activity is undoubtedly accomplished by the spirit without the person being aware of or remembering it.)
The soul is the only dimension of the person that is directly involved in both material and immaterial realms. Not only is the soul embedded in the brain, but it also is involved in the maintenance of life in the body. The soul is connected to the person’s body by virtue of the fact that human beings are souls, and it exists as immaterial nature because it is the all-inclusive, all-encompassing term for heart, mind and – at times – spirit. To think of soul in relation to human material existence is to regard it as synonymous with the body and, especially, the brain. Thus, some aspects of the soul’s functioning can be reduced to the activities of the brain, e.g., regulation of body temperature, breathing, or sleep. The immaterial dimension of the soul, however, cannot be explained on the basis of physical properties or activities in the body or brain. The soul, along with the heart and mind, is embedded in and restricted to the brain, but cannot be defined or explained by neural activity alone.
At its most basic level, the human spirit is the life energy that animates the material and immaterial aspects of the soul. The human spirit, in its capacity as the source of physical life in the person, is given and made possible by God, as is reflected in Ezek 37.1-10:
The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, You know." Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.’ "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, ‘Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. ‘I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD.’" So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. Then He said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life."‘" So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.
This is clearly an apocalyptic vision that the prophet is experiencing, but there is no reason to believe that the depiction of the role of “breath” or “spirit” is not true. While the word used here for breath (ruah) is not the same as the one used in Gen 2.7 (nasham), this word is frequently used in conjunction with soul (nephesh in the Old Testament) and seems to be synonymous. It generally refers to the breath of life. But ruah also is used of the Spirit of God and, when descriptive of His actions, is consider as the source of life: ruah “in God’s hand is the breath . . . of all mankind.”
The human spirit is more than just the life principle in a person: it is that which makes the human person a person, generating the nephesh or psuche. As Archer explains,
ruah is the principle of man’s rational and immortal life, and possesses reason, will, and conscience. It imparts the divine image to man, and constitutes the animating dynamic which results in man’s nephesh as the subject of personal life. The distinctive personality of the individual inheres in his nephesh, the seat of his emotions and desires. ruah is life-power, having the ground of its vitality in itself; the nephesh has a more subjective and conditioned life.
It is within the human spirit, therefore, that the person originates. The spirit animates the material and immaterial aspects of the soul and is so intimately interconnected with them as to be practically inseparable. The image of God resides in the human spirit and is reflected in the attributes and activities of the soul, through which the spirit manifests itself. As stated before, except for the sin-necessitated intermediate state following death, the human spirit requires the human soul – both materially and immaterially – for existence.
It is the activity of the human spirit in the brain that brings the material and immaterial aspects of the person together. Whether initiating neural activity or modifying a bodily-derived process, it is the spirit that superintends neural activity and produces networks, columns, and schemas in the brain. Not only does the spirit provide the initial and continuing energy for a neural activity, it also shapes and determines the direction of the electrical and chemical transmissions. An understanding of this role of the human spirit – and Holy Spirit – is important for those attempting to provide brain-based education and discipleship.
A specific neural activity begins when a stimulus is detected by the brain. This stimulus may be internal or external, conscious or unconscious. As the reader’s eye looks at this page, for example, light is reflected and visual stimulation occurs. The neural stimulus begins with the perceiving of the eye, but the image is immediately transformed into the electrochemical “language of the brain.” The brain processes the information at numerous levels, allowing the eye to “see” the letters and words on the page while simultaneously giving cognitive meaning to the words and eliciting an emotional response. As the process continues throughout the brain at all its various levels, the human spirit (or Holy Spirit) superintends the activity, causing it to follow pre-existing neural schemas or, in the case of learning and sanctification, to make new connections and alter the existing schemas.
In this view, the process of sanctification is seen as the activity of the Holy Spirit as He oversees and, at times, initiates brain activity. Conforming believers to the image of Christ involves changing existing schemas, creating new ones, and allowing sinful schemas to slowly atrophy. These sinful schemas are what the New Testament refers to as “the flesh” which, when energized by the human spirit, wars with the Holy Spirit within the believer (Gal 5.16-17). These sinful, fleshly schemas are never eradicated from the brain, however, leaving the Christian with the possibility of further sin. Perhaps one of the reasons that a new body is required at the resurrection of believers is that the physical brain so effectively resists change and schemas are so enduring.
The exact relationship of the human spirit to the Holy Spirit in the Christian is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures and can only be proposed, not proven. An analogy from the physical world, however, may shed light on the model proposed here. Although somewhat crude, the analogy captures the essence of the proposed relationship that exists between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit within a Christian.
The human spirit may be compared to one-half of the reproductive material (whether sperm or egg) required for the creation of human life. Prior to joining with the other half, it possesses temporary life and lives for a period of time on its own, not requiring union. If it does not merge with the other half of the reproductive material, it will eventually die and be eliminated from the body; at that time, the lack of union or separation from the other half of the reproductive material becomes a permanent state. Similarly, the human spirit has life: it, too, continues on in the person for a period of time and does not require union with the other half, i.e., the Holy Spirit. In this condition, the human spirit possesses life but is said to be spiritually dead (Eph 2.1, 5; Col 2.13) and is only made alive through union with the Holy Spirit (Rom 8.10; Eph 2.5; Col 2.13). At physical death the unconnected human spirit suffers a worse fate than that of the reproductive material: its lack of union with the Holy Spirit becomes a permanent condition and it lives on forever consciously separated from God.
If the half of reproductive material does merge with the other half, however, a remarkable series of events is set in motion. The fusing of the two results in new life, at first in the womb but ultimately in a new environment, i.e., the physical world. In the same way, when the person exercises saving faith in the substitutionary, penal propitiation of Jesus Christ, the human spirit is joined with the Holy Spirit and new life is created – the person is “born again,” “regenerated,” and “made alive in Christ” (1 Pet 1.3, 23; Tit 3.5; 1 Cor 15.22). The relationship between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit at this point is analogous to the combining of the chromosomes and DNA in human reproduction. The critical difference is that neither the human spirit nor the Holy Spirit lose their unique personality or the ability to initiate and maintain brain activity. In the Christian who is “led by the Spirit of God” (Rom 8.14), the human spirit is in submission to the Holy Spirit and allows Him to accomplish His work. Those who are “according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh” (Rom 8.5) and frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit in transforming their minds (brains).
For the Christian educator, the impact of this explanation of Christian growth is both enlightening and powerful. Even a small amount of insight into the functioning of the brain, coupled with an understanding of biblical anthropology and psychology, provides the foundation for the approach to be developed in the next chapter. Apart from such an account, the methods and changes presented would appear to be random and arbitrary. A grasp of the nature of human spiritual experience, however, makes the approach to Christian education and discipleship not only sensible, but necessary.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Chapter Four
BIBLE- AND BRAIN-BASED LEARNING FOR
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND DISCIPLESHIP
The preceding arguments for a view of biblical anthropology that conceptualizes human beings as monistic rather than bi- or tripartite, and also locates human spiritual and “soulish” experience in the physical body, have been preparatory for the present chapter. This chapter seeks to describe a brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship that has as its content the revelation of God in the Bible, for its means the power of God in the Holy Spirit, and for its goal the glory of God in the Christlikeness of the Christian. To accomplish this singular goal, several issues need to be explored and explained.
· First, an overview of Christian education and discipleship must be provided, including a consideration of traditional approaches and why they have failed.
· Second, a theory of and an approach to Christian education and discipleship must be presented that is based on how the brain functions. This necessitates a preliminary study of how people learn, including the roles of human memory and transfer of learning.
· Third, critical conditions required for brain-based learning need to be identified, and twelve principles of brain-based learning will be presented and applied to the local church.
Throughout the chapter, efforts will be made to demonstrate that a brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship is not only compatible with the Bible but is, in fact, exemplified through the narrative and didactic sections of the New Testament. It should come as no surprise that Jesus Christ, who knew best the nature of human beings because He had created them, utilized brain-based techniques long before anyone had any idea that they were brain-based. It is because this was His approach that brain-based learning needs to be implemented once again in the church.
Introduction and Overview
More than twenty-five years ago, Christian educator Lawrence Richards surveyed the state of education and discipleship in the modern church and called for a re-evaluation of the methods being employed and ultimate goals being pursued. He wrote that the church was failing in its responsibility to make disciples because it was focusing on only one aspect of the human constitution – the mind – and hoping that changing beliefs would trigger corresponding changes in the attitudes and behaviors of the believer. But even as its secular counterpart was failing, so the church was not achieving the results both hoped for and expected. The solution, Richards argued, was an approach to education and discipleship that focused on the entire person and sought to change attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors at the same time by engaging all in the process of learning. He wrote,
God’s life within us has its own character and goal. God is at work, shaping persons toward His likeness. This must be seen as a whole-person concern. We are to come to see life and its meaning through His eyes. We are to love as He loves. We are to choose His will as our will. We are to value what he holds important. Likeness is the goal of discipling . . . and the task of Christian education.
Richards envisioned Christian education and discipleship as the application of life; life, he argued, is at the heart of Christianity. Not only has the Bible declared that Christ has come so “that they may have life, and have it abundantly,” (Jn 10.10), but Scripture also makes clear that life is the critical element of salvation. Richards summarized the New Testament’s teaching on the importance of life by stating that
It is life and death that define Christ’s Church and His people. It is the possession of life that distinguishes a Christian from all other men: it is as a community of men who share the divine life that the Church is set apart from every human institution. And it is understanding our faith as life that gives us the clue to the development of a distinctive and theologically sound Christian education.
An additional truth that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions and systems of beliefs, Richards said, was that God in Christ made possible what other religions only held to be distant ideals. Behaviors and attitudes could not only be imagined, but realized through the cooperative work of the believer and the Holy Spirit. But it is a process, he said, and not the acquisition of a product that makes such a realization possible. Richards stated that many of the words which have been viewed as nouns by Christians are more accurately understood as verbs: when the Bible speaks of belief, for example, it is not talking about a state or condition but an activity. This, he said, is life: the process of becoming and having the life of Christ resonating and working in the whole person. Therefore, Christian education and discipleship cannot be limited to one dimension of the human constitution, i.e., the mind, but must address all aspects simultaneously. Likening education and discipleship to the process of socialization experienced by every child in every culture, he stressed that
God’s Truth must be learned in exactly the same ways that any “experienced reality” is to be learned . . . That is, we are to be discipled into faith’s life in the same way any person is discipled into his or her culture . . . we need to focus our educational efforts not on isolated verbalizations of Truth, but on shaping a community in which truth is lived as reality. We need to focus our educational efforts on understanding and using the Church, the Body of Christ, as a culture within which persons who receive the gift of God’s life are to be involved, and through this involvement to be socialized into all that it means to become like Him.
Such an approach is predicated on Richards’ view quoted elsewhere in this paper: God routinely works through natural means in supernatural ways in order (it might be added) to accomplish supernatural goals. Among other things, this process of being socialized into the Christian community and body takes time: growth, whether spiritual or physical, cannot be scheduled. As secular educators have noted, "learning cannot be rushed; the complex cognitive activity of information integration requires time."
Another of Richards’ many significant points stressed that, in contrast to secular institutions of learning, the goal of Christian education and discipleship was not to produce a product, i.e., a person with a cognitive set of knowledge or facts that can be recited upon demand. The focus of the church, he said, should be “to supply what is needed for the process of growth to proceed normally and healthily,” since it is to be “concerned with life, and with the growth of eternal life within the human personality, toward a likeness to the God who gives it.” The observation of Caine and Caine, cited previously, bears reemphasis at this point: secular education (and, sadly, Christian education) has failed and is failing because it has confused knowledge about something for knowledge of something: “experience of is not the same as knowing about.”
The historic and traditional approach to education, both secular and sacred, in the Western world has been based on a limited conceptualization of learning, as well as a limited definition of knowledge. Education has approached learning based on the presuppositions of Plato, who argued that “if a man only knew the Good, he would surely choose it.” This pre-Christian, as well as non-Christian, view has been accepted without question by a secular community that wants to believe that human beings are basically good and only do wrong because of lack of knowledge and education. The Christian community, which certainly should know better, has adopted the secular approach without examining the philosophical foundation upon which it rests.
Brain-Based Learning
How do people learn? The answer to this question will shape the subsequent approach to Christian education and discipleship. Earlier models of learning proved to be erroneous and an attitude of caution – even skepticism – is understandable for educators in the secular profession of education. For Christians, however, such cynicism is eliminated by a simple, yet critical, fact: the methods derived from and founded upon the brain-based model of learning are consistent with the methods and approaches utilized by Jesus Christ in His training of His twelve disciples. The effectiveness of the approach does not ultimately depend on the underlying, explanatory theory. It is possible that the neurological theory of brain-based learning might be wrong at various points, but to the extent brain-based methods are patterned after those employed by our Lord, Christian educators can be confident that the approach will be effective and that the desired results in education and discipleship will be achieved.
Disciples are not made overnight; maturity is not attained through a one-time reading of the Bible. At least one of the reasons for this is found in God’s creation of the human brain: in order for attitudes to be reoriented and behavior to change, the brain must go through a process of “re-wiring” itself. The longer the old habits have existed, and the more frequently the attitudes have been reinforced and the behavior repeated, the stronger the neural connections will be in the brain. The saying is, “cells that fire together wire together.” On the positive side, this resistance results in personality being relatively stable and provides a sense of predictably about one’s self as well as others in the community of believers. On the negative side, however, it means that sanctification is a long-time, hard-work miracle.
Albeit slowly, learning changes the brain: new synapses are created as neurons begin to make new connections, which spawn new networks and schemas in the brain. Not only is the brain changed structurally, it is also altered functionally: perspective and awareness change so that both attitudes and behavior are modified as a result. The process is made more difficult by the fact that different areas of the brain are frequently not “on the same page,” i.e., while one area of the brain may welcome a new connection, an area further along the network may not be ready to make more connections. This necessitates a repetition of instruction (Rom 15.15, Gal 1.9, Gal 4.19, Php 3.1, Heb 5.12) until the transformation is complete.
Learning involves three closely related factors: memory, transfer of learning, and types of knowledge. An understanding of each and the interaction of the three are necessary for the implementation of brain-based Christian education and discipleship.
Memory
Although there are a variety of ways to categorize memory, the approach taken here is to classify memory in terms of taxon (rote, static) memory and locale (spatial, dynamic) memory. Both are involved in long-term memory and are thus instructive in developing an approach to education and discipleship that is effective. The distinction between the two is not always appreciated but is critical in tapping into the natural learning process of the brain.
A trip to the store illustrates the difference between the two systems: taxon memory is employed to remember the handful of items on the shopping list: light bulbs, socks, dog food, batteries, and lip gloss. If the list is not written down, it needs to be repeated mentally so that no items are forgotten. Locale memory, in contrast, occurs within a context and is almost effortless. How many light bulbs were in each package? “There were two in the package.” What color were the socks? “White.” How much was spent? “Exactly $23.85.” Such facts are learned and remembered, but it is doubtful that the shopper walked about the store rehearsing the information: “Two in the package, two in the package, two in the package” or “White, white, white.” Locale memory is natural and usually achieved without conscious effort. It is this form of memory that is generally lacking in traditional approaches to education.
Taxon (or rote) memory is the type of memory that has been overwhelmingly utilized in traditional approaches to education. It is also reflected in Scripture memorization programs in the church wherein verses and passages of the Bible are learned through repetition and rehearsal. Its association with traditional education does not mean that taxon memory is out-dated or without value: it serves very important functions. Basic things essential for survival are acquired through the process of taxon memory, as are other facts such as the multiplication tables, the alphabet, and telephone numbers.
In addition to being acquired through repetition and rehearsal, taxon memories must rely heavily on continued repetition and rehearsal for their maintenance. These memories are also affected by external rewards and punishment: whether striving for a grade in a classroom or a gold star in Sunday School, the hope of gain or the avoidance of loss motivate the student to memorize. The underlying ideas and principles, however, are usually ignored in the process.
Taxon memories are not easily changed: anyone who has tried to correct flaws in a golf swing or tennis stroke is aware of this frustrating fact. Such habits and patterns are stored in taxon memory and resist modification. On the positive side, repeated practice of proper techniques or behaviors will produce desirable effects. Those of us who learned as children to swim or ride a bicycle know that the skills (that is, neural schemas) remain intact once they have been mastered sufficiently.
Two additional facts concerning taxon memory are important. First, facts in the taxon system are isolated, i.e., “they exist as stable entities . . . that can be called on and used in a fairly predictable manner.” Although learned apart from context, the items in taxon memory are nevertheless available to used with other items stored in memory. For example, learning to drive a car does not require new learning each time the driver gets behind the wheel of a different vehicle. What was learned in the first vehicle can be applied to subsequent, relatively similar situations. Second, a great deal of what is learned through taxon memory is not immediately meaningful. The rules of arithmetic or spelling are not especially valuable to the student, but their importance becomes obvious later when items must be calculated and recorded by the student.
Locale or spatial memory refers to that which is learned and remembered through living in the world. Caine and Caine explain that
. . . everything that happens to us happens in space. This is so fundamental that we overlook it, and it needs to be made apparent. It means, in part, that we are always operating in a very rich physical context. . . . Regardless of what we are doing, we are always in a physical context – and this affects our comprehension.
Living in a physical context results in the creation of spatial maps or neural networks in the brain:
We rely on spatial maps to guide our movements and interactions within our surroundings. We use “maps” here to describe and interconnecting representation of places in the external world. The presence of these maps is absolutely crucial to the operation of our lives. After all, we must remember where we are in order to interact with the world safely and effectively.
Every person possesses a spatial memory system that includes not only information regarding where they are but also what they are doing. Recalling a drive in mountains, for example, will result in memories of particular scenes or portions of the road, as well as provide the reason for the trip, e.g., to go with friends to the top of Mt. Evans in Colorado. Spatial maps are quickly produced in the brain and continually updated as additional or more accurate information is gained. In addition, the more senses involved in the formation of the map, the better the map will be and the more readily it can be retrieved.
Even as the brain stores information related to space, so does it create thematic maps. These neural organizations are
mental maps of information . . . [which] exist as part of an interconnected pattern. . . . Thematic maps are critical for establishing more sophisticated links that aid in the transfer of knowledge. . . . Thus there may be significant themes in our life, such as the need for a personal relationship or political ideology, that operate to organize and shape much of our behavior. . . . these themes serve as mental representations of the type of fluid, complex, and interactive relationships found in maps representing physical space. Our natural mental maps, therefore, seem to be at the heart of thematic teaching. That same memory system is engaged when we use stories, metaphors, celebrations, imagery, and music, all of which are powerful tools for brain-based learning.
Even a superficial reading of the gospels reveals that such tools were used by Jesus Christ in His training of the twelve disciples. Jesus was the superlative storyteller, as illustrated in His use of what befell the Galileans and those upon whom the tower in Siloam fell (Lk 13.1-5). The story emphasized His point: that the residents of Jerusalem were no better than those people, and that judgment awaited them unless they repented. His parables, which are extended metaphors, are known by Christians and non-Christians alike; they are unforgettable word pictures used to underscore important truths. At the Last Supper, He employed celebration – the Passover – and combined it with imagery – the bread is His body, the cup His blood – and music (Mt 26.17-30). Jesus did not require the disciples to memorize the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, but instead relied on brain-based teaching techniques to establish the memory and lesson in their minds.
One of the most powerful and least understood aspects of locale memory is that the internal maps that we all have are partly organized on the basis of concepts and ideas . . . A concept is essentially a way of integrating facts and information. The more powerful the ideas and concepts that we have, the greater the capacity to absorb, integrate, organize, and synthesize information – and so make sense of experience. That is why the curriculum should always make categories and concepts primary and facts secondary.
Sadly, the church has largely followed the example of the secular educational system in stressing facts instead of concepts, rules rather than principles, or church attendance over fellowship.
The distinction between taxon and locale memory can be thought of as the difference between a route and a map: taxon memory is like a route, while locale memory is similar to a map. When planning a trip, for example, one might employ a computer program to find the quickest route from Chicago to Los Angeles. The route would provide all information necessary to get from one point to the other; this is analogous to taxon memory. The route, however, would not tell you what areas of interest were nearby or what alternate routes might be possible. Locale memory, on the other hand, provides a map of the territory from Chicago to Los Angeles and pulls together a great deal of information such as terrain, political boundaries, points of interest along the way, and other paths to arrive at the destination. Routes are obviously important and, at times, are all that is necessary for a given task, but locale memory suggests other routes and adds richness and context to the task. Locale memory also makes creativity and insight possible since it provides meaning and breadth to the information.
Transfer of Learning
Transfer of learning is “the ability to extend what has been learned in one context to new contexts.” It is in transfer of learning that taxon memory and locale memory come together, the former providing the raw material and the latter generating both the conceptual framework and the index system for organizing and accessing the material.
Contrasting the two memory systems reveals the transfer potential of each. An example of the flexibility and adaptability of locale memory is reflected in a simple task such as counting backwards from one hundred by threes. Understanding the principles of subtraction, it is relatively easy to produce the numbers: 100, 97, 94, 91, 88, 85, etc.
The rigidity of taxon memory is demonstrated in the following parlor game. A person is asked to recite the alphabet within ten seconds; this is easily done. They are then asked to list the months of the calendar year in ten seconds; this, too, is accomplished. But when asked to recite the months of the year in alphabetical order within thirty seconds, the person has considerable difficulty even though the material is remarkably familiar. The reason for the difficulty lies in the manner in which it was learned: both the alphabet and the months of the year are usually learned through memorization, i.e., taxon memory. It is obviously good to know things such as the alphabet and the months of the year, but the manner in which they are learned may make transfer of knowledge problematic in certain situations.
Several influences have a bearing on the ability of a person to learn new information and to apply the learning in new situations. Perhaps the most important factor is the degree to which earlier learning is understood.
All new learning involves transfer based on previous learning, and this fact has important implications for the design of instruction that helps students learn. The first factor that influences successful transfer is degree of mastery of the original subject. Without an adequate level of initial learning, transfer cannot be expected.
Transfer of learning rests heavily upon locale memory and is impeded by taxon memory alone. A grasp of principles and the presence of abstract, thematic mapping allow the student to apply previous learning to new material. The rigid, concrete organization of taxon memory makes change and novel thinking difficult.
Examples of Jesus Christ using previous learning as the basis for new learning are found throughout the gospels. He relied on His disciples familiarity with the Old Testament code in the Sermon on the Mount as indicated by the recurring formula, “You have heard . . . but I say to you . . . “ (Mt 5.21-48). Jesus assumed his disciples knowledge of the requirements of the Law as interpreted by the Jewish leaders and used contrast to highlight the point He was making in each instance.
The effectiveness of His parables also depended upon His listeners’ prior knowledge of common, daily responsibilities: the activity of a sower in planting seed (Mt 13), of a shepherd caring for a flock (Jn 10), or a vinedresser tending a vine (Jn 15). The variety of figures employed by Christ assured that His disciples would have relative expertise in at least one of the areas upon which His parables were based.
With Nicodemus, Jesus drew the Pharisee’s attention to Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness and the salvation that resulted; He built upon that knowledge by explaining that eternal life would be gained in just the same way (Jn 3.14-15). Christ could be confident that Nicodemus, a leader among the Pharisees, would have committed to memory most if not all of the Old Testament. What might have been somewhat unfamiliar or vague allusion to another audience was undoubtedly a familiar historical fact to Pharisee. The comparison between the lifting up of the object of faith for the Israelites and the lifting up of The Object of faith for all of humanity would be impossible for Nicodemus to miss.
Jesus also counted on prior learning when dealing with the masses which followed Him. To a grumbling group of superficial followers, He capitalized on the Jews’ knowledge of manna in the wilderness to declare that He, in contrast, was the true bread of life which came down from heaven (Jn 6.30-35). And, at a Festival of Booths, He seized upon a poignant moment to make a point with the crowd: for the first seven days of the festival, the priests carried water from the Pool of Siloam and poured it into a silver basin by the altar outside the temple; on the last day of the feast, however, the priest did not perform this ritual. Jesus took advantage of the moment to teach the people that He was the source of rivers of living water (Jn 7.37-39).
Finally, to the woman at the well in Samaria, who certainly understood the nature of thirst and drawing water, Jesus declared that “whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life” (Jn 4.13-14).
A second influence on transfer of learning is the extent to which understanding is the focus of learning rather than mere memorization or learning a set of procedures. A set of rules is easily understood and obeyed, as evidenced by the Pharisaic scribes, who by the time of Christ had developed an extensive and burdensome code to be followed. If the underlying principles are not taught, however, then the student or disciple will not be able to apply the learning in situations that are not identical to what is prescribed or proscribe in the code.
It this problem that Jesus addressed in the portion of the Sermon on the Mount alluded previously. The people knew that the Commandment declared that it was wrong to kill, but Jesus focused on the spirit or principle of the Law, which in this case was anger. Similarly, the people knew that adultery was wrong; Christ taught the principle that lust of any kind was wrong. Throughout His ministry, our Lord was teaching His disciples the principle, or spirit, of the law; once the disciples had a grasp of the principles, they were better prepared to understand the true nature and scope of the Old Testament law.
A third factor which enhances transfer is a sufficient amount of time for the subject matter to be mastered; the amount of time varies with the amount of material to be learned. Jesus spent roughly 1,200 days with His disciples and, except for a few retreats to the mountains to pray or to briefly return to home His home, it appears that He was with them continuously. If only 10 hours each day were times when the disciples could observe and learn from Him, that means they had approximately 12,000 hours of instruction from Jesus Christ. The average seminary student, in contrast, has less than 1,000 hours of face-to-face contact with professors. The amount of time required to learn and to master lessons, tasks, and responsibilities is routinely underestimated.
Learning lessons in a variety of situations and environments also increases the likelihood that transfer will occur.
How tightly learning is tied to contexts depends on how the knowledge is acquired . . . Research has indicated that transfer across contexts is especially difficult when a subject is taught only in a single context . . . When a subject is taught in multiple contexts, however, and includes examples that demonstrate wide application of what is being taught, people are more likely to abstract the relevant features of concepts and to develop a flexible representation of knowledge.
Once again, it was not in a synagogue or other type of formal, structured classroom that Jesus taught the disciples what He desired them to know. The Lord taught from boats, on hillsides, in the courts of the temple, in a vineyard, in homes, reclining at dinners, and walking through the fields and countryside. The disciples learned firsthand that spirituality was to be woven into the fabric of their everyday lives, not limited to a classroom or auditorium on certain days of the week.
Types of Knowledge
To move beyond the limited, ineffective models of traditional education demands a broadening of the types of knowledge to be acquired. There are basically three types of knowledge which can be acquired by a student or disciple: surface knowledge, technical or scholastic knowledge, and natural (or dynamical) knowledge. The education industry and the church have restricted knowledge to essentially surface knowledge and technical knowledge. Surface knowledge is
the product of rote learning. . . . It does not matter whether the learner understands the content, only that the content is memorized. Thus, content includes facts and skills that are memorized irrespective of how the learner feels about them or what the learner thinks about them.
Surface knowledge is unfortunately similar to that which is routinely emphasized in many churches: verses and passages of Scripture are memorized coldly, removed from the context of life. This also explains why Christians can quote Scripture without having a corresponding change in personality or behavior. God warned Israel of such religious behavior in Is 29.13-14:
Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; And the wisdom of their wise men will perish, And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed."
For Scripture to have a transforming impact on a believer, it must be learned in a context which involves and connects all aspects of the person’s experience and existence. Caine explains that
the essential limitation of surface knowledge is that meaning and understanding are frequently irrelevant. Consequently, the knowledge is simply instrumental. The ability to transfer and apply such knowledge to other more dynamic contests is extremely limited.
Technical or scholastic knowledge “consists of the ideas, principles, and procedures that are traditionally regarded as the core content of any subject or discipline.” The chief limitation of such knowledge is that it “lacks a quality that makes it available for solving real problems or for dealing with complex situations.” This difficulty is frequently seen in the church, for example, by those who invest the time and energy to learn systematic theology and yet, when asked to apply the sovereignty and goodness of God to a situation of human tragedy, are at a loss to explain how theology intersects everyday life.
In contrast, natural knowledge refers to the basic motivations which govern people and provide a person with a sense of direction and purpose. Natural knowledge includes two additional concepts, deep meanings and felt meanings. “Deep meanings are the source of most intrinsic motivation . . . [they] shape what we are willing to look at and how we interpret our experiences.” In short, deep meanings are the worldview or philosophy of life that a person possesses. They not only determine how an individual interprets or understands what is experienced, but even limit what is perceived. Deep meanings are schemas in the brain that provide the mental maps for navigating and making sense of life. As such, they are the focus of Paul’s exhortation in Rom 12.1-2:
Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
The transformation to which Paul refers is the equivalent of deep meanings. Such a metamorphosis, he says, will change the believer’s perspective or worldview so that they will be able to perceive the world and life differently. It will enable them to understand God’s moral will, i.e., "that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” No longer limited to an earthly, human understanding of the world and life, the believer is now able to see life from a divine perspective and to make sense of experiences based on God’s plan and purpose.
Felt meaning “is an almost visceral sense of relationship, an unarticulated sense of connectedness that ultimately culminates in insight.” Felt meanings are what make experiences individually significant: life is not a cold, sterile, academic experience to be analyzed, but intensely personal and important. The connection of thought and feeling is the sin qua non of understanding and learning: thoughts disconnected from feelings are sterile and feelings without thought are aimless. Thus, Jesus repeatedly excoriates the Pharisees for having knowledge without mercy (e.g., Mt 23.23 ff.) and Paul bemoans the condition of his countrymen who, although possessing zeal, are without knowledge (Rom 10.2).
A primary difficulty with the traditional model of education is that it separates the material to be learned from the learner, as though learning were the production of a commodity rather than an ongoing process. This approach is based on an inadequate understanding of how the human brain learns: the traditional model, both secular and Christian, regards learning as a simple process of acquiring information which, following Plato, will automatically lead to changes in attitudes and behaviors. It treats the material to be learned as separate and detached from the person doing the learning.
Brain research show that to be largely wrong. As people learn about the world in meaningful ways, the learning changes them. They are changed psychologically, and they are changed physiologically . . . They are literally reshaped and reformed.
One of the characteristics of natural knowledge is that the learner is able to apply knowledge in new situations and to come to new conclusions. This was evident in both Peter and Stephen in the early church. Both applied the teachings of the Old Testament to the events that were occurring in Jerusalem following the coming of the Holy Spirit. There is no record that either Peter or Stephen was reciting a previously memorized sermon learned from Jesus Christ during His ministry. Because learning had occurred at a felt-meaning level, both of them spontaneously delivered powerful messages based on knowledge which had not been connected to the situation previously.
Natural or perceptual knowledge “is what we end up with as a result of our constructing our own meanings,” or, for Christians, what results when the Holy Spirit transforms our neural schemas so that we are able to view life and situations from a new, divine perspective. Knowledge is not rigidly connected to one particular situation or application, but has evolved into a principle which may be applied in a variety of settings. The corresponding biblical concept for natural knowledge is wisdom, which is the ability to live life skillfully and to see life from God’s perspective. In brain terminology, natural knowledge is the process of developing and applying personally relevant and meaningful neural schemas to the entirety of one’s life. It is a perceptual grid through which life is filtered.
This is the knowledge that is the gateway to real power because it is the knowledge that is indispensable for effective action. It is the type of knowledge that can only be gained from real experience. It is dynamic or performance knowledge. Peculiarly, and often unknown to the people who most highly value it, high-level thinking and abstract ideas also become dynamic in the same way, that is, through use in life. [emphasis theirs]
Conditions Required for Learning
One major, flawed assumption of the traditional model of learning is that all that is required of the learner is attendance and attention. Learners are presumed to be ready to learn and teachers ready to teach simply by beginning at an arbitrary time at an agreed upon location. Not surprisingly, more is required for both learner and teacher in order for learning to take place. This section explores necessary conditions for learning to occur and the different levels of knowledge to be acquired in the process of learning.
Three basic conditions are required for learning to take place: relaxed alertness, orchestrated immersion, and active processing. Relaxed alertness refers to a state of mind characterized by low threat and high challenge: learners must feel emotionally safe within the context of an honest, supportive yet confrontational community which allows for growth and experimentation. This condition, which is the optimal state of mind for learning, is deliberately achieved. It includes relaxing physically, meditating purposefully (focusing on specific biblical content rather than attempting to empty one’s mind), and assuring that the physical environment supports such a state of mind. Providing students with a safe, non-threatening learning experience requires first of all that the teacher feels neither threatened nor bored. Learning needs to be safe enough not to be threatening, but challenging enough not to be boring.
Immersion in the learning experience is based on the finding that “to some extent all meaningful learning is experiential.” Elements that contribute to immersion in learning include “an event or situation that has some aspect of a narrative or story form;” a physical environment that supports the narrative; genuine, supportive social relationships, and, a wide range of experiences involving as many of the senses as possible. The more that the experience resembles real-life, the more effective the teaching.
Orchestrated immersion involves not only personal interaction with the teacher or discipler, but an opportunity for learners to engage in long-term, open-ended, and self-directed studies which are sufficiently challenging so as to produce intrinsic rewards. One need look no further than the process of sanctification, a life-long pursuit not to be completed in this lifetime, for an example of such a challenge for the Christian. And more than merely being immersed in the study, the Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and provided with the power to do the work.
The third and final condition necessary for learning to occur is active processing of the experience by the learner. This means that, guided by the teacher or discipler, sufficient practice and rehearsal is provided to allow the learner to begin to make connections and create new meanings with the new knowledge being acquired. To broaden and deepen the learning, students must be given an opportunity to actively process the material and the experience.
Active processing includes thinking critically . . . asking probing questions, exploring alternative perspectives and points of view, solving problems, recognizing details, and searching for big ideas and broad implications. Thus, active processing leads to true understanding and mastery of content. . . . [It] allows students to begin to take charge of learning and the development of personal meanings.
John wrote, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (Jn 21.25). It is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus Christ spent hours around campfires, on walks, at meals, or in boats discussing and rehashing what had transpired during the day, giving the disciples time to process the events and lessons to which they had been witnesses.
If there is a single obstacle to achieving natural learning, it is a phenomenon labeled “downshifting,” which is a student’s or disciple’s reaction to an imagined or actual threat. Downshifting may be defined as “a psychophysiological response to perceived threat accompanied by a sense of helplessness or fatigue or both.” It culminates in a sense of inadequacy, incompetence, or a lack of self-efficacy. Threat, in this definition, is anything that causes a person to become fearful in anyway, and especially includes loss of self-esteem. Its impact on education and discipleship is significant because,
This feeling results in a reversion to deeply entrenched, early learned behaviors and programming, and to the sorts of primitive responses associated with the “fight or flight” response. We also find it difficult to perceive new opportunities, recognize context cues, and deal with uncertainty. Sometimes we even find it impossible to access ideas and procedures that we already know.
In the face of such a hostile environment, students become more rigid and less open to new experiences, explanations, or insights. Students not only become defensive, but have a restricted ability to adapt to new situations. The establishment of “teacher-as-authority” is often enough to cause students to be defensive and make new learning almost impossible.
According to Caine and Caine, at least five classroom conditions contribute to downshifting:
1. Pre-specified “correct” outcomes have been established by an agent other than the learners. There are certainly situations and lessons where there is but one correct answer, but there are also many that allow for a variety of responses. Implied pressure to be correct generally results in students searching for the “right” answer rather than exploring the subject for the purpose of gaining understanding. The possibility of being wrong poses a threat to students leading to downshifting. It is remarkable how infrequently Jesus Christ rebuked his disciples for a “wrong” answer and refrained from criticizing them for at-times impulsive, inane questions.
2. Personal meaning is limited. Learning requires a connection between what students already know and the new information presented. In the absence of such a connection, rote memorization results since creativity is eliminated through the disconnect. It is perhaps not without significance that Jesus Christ never assigned verses and passages from the Old Testament for the disciples to memorize; instead, He incorporated Scripture into His teaching and connected with everyday events with which the disciples were familiar: weather, fishing, farming, etc.
3. Rewards and/or punishment are externally controlled and relatively immediate. While students have some control over performance on a test, they do not have any control over the person who evaluates and rewards them. When rewards are derived from an internal sense of accomplishing a task or acquiring new information, personal involvement is high even when rewards are delayed. Immediate rewards promote immediate answers and tend to eliminate the time necessary for understanding to take place. As believers, we understand the simplicity of acquiring rewards which will be given at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 14.10, 2 Cor 5.10). It is within each Christian’s power to accumulate rewards.
4. Restrictive time lines are given. Deadlines certainly have their place (Mt 24.15-18, Jn 13.27), but a continual pressure to learn within a limited amount of time is counter-productive. It results in students working to get done instead of working to explore meaning and/or options. Again, it is noteworthy that the Son of Man, knowing how brief His time was to train the disciples, never seemed to be hurried or rushed and never prodded them to work more quickly.
5. Work to be done is relatively unfamiliar and little support is available. The unfamiliar attempted without support produces uncertainty and gives no assurance that success will result. Jesus Christ not only built a community, but promised that He would not leave them alone but would send them the Holy Spirit to be in them (Jn 16.7); He also assured them, “I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Mt 28.20).
When people downshift, a variety of things occur. First, self-protection becomes important and pleasing the teacher or discipler with the “correct” answer results in memorization and people-pleasing behavior. Genuine understanding and meaningful learning are inhibited by a desire to gain immediate approval from the instructor. There is also a diminished ability to adjust to new situations: students or disciples “persist in set modes of behavior in a fairly rigid and unresponsive way.” Instead of being able to tolerate the uncertainty of unanswered questions, individuals fall back on what is familiar: early and deeply programmed behaviors and responses from childhood, including ignoring people, procrastinating, avoidance, and impatience. Desiring to belong to the group, the person may adopt a set of beliefs and attitudes that are hand-me-down at best and become adversarial toward others who do not hold to the same opinions or positions.
It is not difficult to imagine – or recall – times of downshifting in the local church. Clearly there are correct answers in the Bible, but many people are embarrassed to admit that they don’t know the answer to a question. Peer pressure is considerable for children, adolescents, and adults. The failure of teachers, preachers, or disciplers to make lessons or sermons personally relevant contributes to downshifting in the church, and the absence of a truly nurturing and supportive community is too common. If it were possible to measure, it is likely that downshifting would be found to be the norm throughout the church on any given Sunday morning. Brain-based learning, however, decreases the prevalence of downshifting and enhances the possibility of genuine learning taking place.
One of the primary purposes in the calling of the twelve disciples, according to Mark, was so that they might spend time with Jesus (3.14). This was their apprenticeship, a time when they would learn lessons from the Master not only through His messages but by accompanying Him during more than three years of ministry. Jesus did not primarily train the disciples didactically but by having them with Him and giving them ministerial opportunities and responsibilities.
Jesus Christ, admittedly not intending to present a treatise on effective brain-based discipling techniques, nevertheless modeled the conditions and principles discussed here. In loving His disciples He created an atmosphere of relaxed alertness; by being with them continuously He immersed them for more than three years in a learning-rich environment, and through repetition, questions, and fellowship gave the disciples opportunities to actively process all that they were learning.
Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the effectiveness of His strategy was demonstrated by the awareness of the rulers, elders, scribes, and family of high priests who, “as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus” (Ac 4.13). Empowered by the Holy Spirit, Peter and John manifested the effects of three-plus years of learning first-hand what it meant to minister, preach, and witness. They changed the face of the world because they had received a real-life education and had been discipled into being leaders of the early church.
The key, in teaching, is to make sure that the context supports the content . . . One of the most powerful aspects of context is the social setting and the social relationships that develop . . . A crucial aspect of one’s context is the society in which one is a part . . . Because the brain/mind is social, one’s ideas and perceptions are always shaped in some ways by the ideas and perceptions of other people . . . that is a further reason why establishing good community is the indispensable foundation for developing better schools.
The condition that made such learning possible was the safety and ruthless honesty which had always distinguished the example of Jesus Christ in their training. The context He provided for the disciples was the environment which facilitated the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
Brain-Based Learning Principles
Geoffrey and Renate Caine are the two most prolific writers in the area of brain-based learning and teaching; they have developed twelve principles which they have found to be helpful for educators. An understanding of the principles is valuable in effecting the desired results in Christian education and discipleship. Those principles are:
1. The brain is a complex adaptive system.
2. The brain is a social brain.
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through “patterning.”
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception.
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory.
10. Learning is development.
11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Every brain is uniquely organized.
There are implications for Christian education and discipleship that grow out of the principles. The following observations and applications are drawn from the various works of Caine and Caine:
Because the brain is a complex information- and experience-processing organ, no new information or experience is assimilated in isolation. A new lesson, for example, is learned in a particular context and associated with numerous other events and factors occurring at the same time. This being the case, the educator or discipler needs to make an effort to coordinate the various aspects of the learning environment so that the entire brain is involved in the learning experience. Peter’s recollection of the Mount of Transfiguration is typical of the historical narratives throughout the Bible: the report of the lesson learned is embedded in rich, environmental detail.
The brain is a learning organ and will learn naturally when allowed. Obstacles to learning must be identified and removed, if possible, to allow the person to learn naturally. This is similar to Richard’s concept of acculturation: people learn best in contexts which are non-threatening and where learning may not be intentional, although teaching is. Mark records that Jesus Christ’s purpose in calling the twelve disciples was simply so that they could be with Him; it was not so that they might change the world or establish the Kingdom of God on earth, either of which would have overwhelmed them.
Because the human person is monistic, learning involves and engages the whole person. Factors such as stress, nutrition, exercise, and other physical concerns are important aspects of the learning environment. Jesus was routinely concerned with the physical needs of His followers and Himself (Mt 14.15-16, Mk 8.1-2, Jn 4.8).
The brain seeks to make sense of experiences and will compel a person to do whatever is necessary to achieve such understanding. It flourishes in familiar surroundings but also desires new and challenging experiences. An educational setting, therefore, must be safe and stable while also allowing for discovery and new experiences. Real-life experiences are preferred over artificial settings, and the more choices the individual is faced with, the more opportunities to learn and grow.
The brain makes sense of the world and life through the development of neural networks or schemas which allow the person to organize and categorize experiences. Meaningless patterns are resisted and rejected. The challenge for the educator or discipler is to focus and channel the patterning. “For teaching to be really effective, a learner must be able to create meaningful and personally relevant patterns.”
Emotions are crucial to learning: feelings cannot be separated from thoughts. Attention must be given to the person’s emotional needs since the immediate experience will influence subsequent learning, too. The learning environment needs to be supportive, accepting, and respectful; the freedom to fail or be wrong must be present. The touching restoration of Peter following his three denials reveals the nature of the environment that Christ established and maintained for His disciples, not only in personal failure but especially in such failure.
The two hemispheres of the brain have distinct functions, including an attention to analysis by one and to synthesis on the other. Effective teaching, therefore, will include explanation of the whole as well as of the parts. This is vividly illustrated in Paul’s treatment of “body life” in 1 Cor 12: “For the body is not one member, but many,” he states in v. 14 in explaining the importance of every individual member of the body of Christ. He quickly shifts the focus, however, and declares, “But now there are many members, but one body” (v. 20). Attending to both the whole and the parts provides believers with a complete picture and engages both hemispheres of the brain.
The brain is able to process information on which it is consciously focused, but at the same time takes in what lies beyond conscious attention. In learning, the brain pays attention to the total environment. Instructors can facilitate such peripheral learning by including “background,” environmental items that support the focus of the lesson. There is no indication that Christ told the disciples to count the baskets of leftovers they collected after the feeding of the four thousand and the five thousand, but they were able to tell Him when asked about it later. Christ drew their attention to the baskets in order to teach that He would be faithful in supplying their needs.
The brain learns consciously and unconsciously; thus, individuals learn more than they understand. Experiences are remembered even more than content. Instructors can utilize unconscious learning by bringing things to the level of consciousness through activities that provide opportunities for reflection, and through the use of parables and metaphors that require associations that would otherwise go unrecognized. Jesus’ repeated use of parables created visual images for the disciples which they were certain to remember at a later time.
The brain organizes memories through rote and natural systems, but the latter does not require rehearsal, results in immediate learning, and is inexhaustible. Natural memory is also stimulated by new and challenging experiences; information that is divorced from prior experience and/or actual experience is processed by rote memory. Although memorization via the rote memory system has its place, it will not result in changes in attitudes and behaviors unless the information is meaningfully connected to the personal world of the learner. It is noteworthy that Jesus did not teach the disciples things that they would need to know later, but rather used real-life situations as opportunities for teaching.
The brain will downshift when threatened or bored but will learn most effectively when challenged in a supportive environment. Thus, educators and disciplers need to first make certain that students and disciples feel safe and loved. This allows the person to relax and absorb instruction through all the senses. Peter again provides an illustration: in a series of situations which he perceived as threatening, the disciple resorted to old, familiar behaviors. He denied, swore an oath, and even cursed to avoid the trouble he was certain awaited him.
Given its complexity, it is obvious that every brain – and every person – is unique. A learning environment needs to be broad and flexible enough to allow each person to learn according to their own preferences and at their own pace. Paul emphasizes the unique gifts and attributes of individual believers in his discussion of body life in 1 Cor 12.1-19.
Such a list of principles may seem overwhelming at first, but what is required for brain-based learning to be effective is no more – and no less – than the supportive, loving, accepting community and relationships to which Jesus Christ has called believers. Once again, a study of Christ’s training of His disciples reflects each of the principles in action. To engage in brain-based learning is to follow the example of the New Testament and to obey the commands of Christ.
BIBLE- AND BRAIN-BASED LEARNING FOR
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND DISCIPLESHIP
The preceding arguments for a view of biblical anthropology that conceptualizes human beings as monistic rather than bi- or tripartite, and also locates human spiritual and “soulish” experience in the physical body, have been preparatory for the present chapter. This chapter seeks to describe a brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship that has as its content the revelation of God in the Bible, for its means the power of God in the Holy Spirit, and for its goal the glory of God in the Christlikeness of the Christian. To accomplish this singular goal, several issues need to be explored and explained.
· First, an overview of Christian education and discipleship must be provided, including a consideration of traditional approaches and why they have failed.
· Second, a theory of and an approach to Christian education and discipleship must be presented that is based on how the brain functions. This necessitates a preliminary study of how people learn, including the roles of human memory and transfer of learning.
· Third, critical conditions required for brain-based learning need to be identified, and twelve principles of brain-based learning will be presented and applied to the local church.
Throughout the chapter, efforts will be made to demonstrate that a brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship is not only compatible with the Bible but is, in fact, exemplified through the narrative and didactic sections of the New Testament. It should come as no surprise that Jesus Christ, who knew best the nature of human beings because He had created them, utilized brain-based techniques long before anyone had any idea that they were brain-based. It is because this was His approach that brain-based learning needs to be implemented once again in the church.
Introduction and Overview
More than twenty-five years ago, Christian educator Lawrence Richards surveyed the state of education and discipleship in the modern church and called for a re-evaluation of the methods being employed and ultimate goals being pursued. He wrote that the church was failing in its responsibility to make disciples because it was focusing on only one aspect of the human constitution – the mind – and hoping that changing beliefs would trigger corresponding changes in the attitudes and behaviors of the believer. But even as its secular counterpart was failing, so the church was not achieving the results both hoped for and expected. The solution, Richards argued, was an approach to education and discipleship that focused on the entire person and sought to change attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors at the same time by engaging all in the process of learning. He wrote,
God’s life within us has its own character and goal. God is at work, shaping persons toward His likeness. This must be seen as a whole-person concern. We are to come to see life and its meaning through His eyes. We are to love as He loves. We are to choose His will as our will. We are to value what he holds important. Likeness is the goal of discipling . . . and the task of Christian education.
Richards envisioned Christian education and discipleship as the application of life; life, he argued, is at the heart of Christianity. Not only has the Bible declared that Christ has come so “that they may have life, and have it abundantly,” (Jn 10.10), but Scripture also makes clear that life is the critical element of salvation. Richards summarized the New Testament’s teaching on the importance of life by stating that
It is life and death that define Christ’s Church and His people. It is the possession of life that distinguishes a Christian from all other men: it is as a community of men who share the divine life that the Church is set apart from every human institution. And it is understanding our faith as life that gives us the clue to the development of a distinctive and theologically sound Christian education.
An additional truth that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions and systems of beliefs, Richards said, was that God in Christ made possible what other religions only held to be distant ideals. Behaviors and attitudes could not only be imagined, but realized through the cooperative work of the believer and the Holy Spirit. But it is a process, he said, and not the acquisition of a product that makes such a realization possible. Richards stated that many of the words which have been viewed as nouns by Christians are more accurately understood as verbs: when the Bible speaks of belief, for example, it is not talking about a state or condition but an activity. This, he said, is life: the process of becoming and having the life of Christ resonating and working in the whole person. Therefore, Christian education and discipleship cannot be limited to one dimension of the human constitution, i.e., the mind, but must address all aspects simultaneously. Likening education and discipleship to the process of socialization experienced by every child in every culture, he stressed that
God’s Truth must be learned in exactly the same ways that any “experienced reality” is to be learned . . . That is, we are to be discipled into faith’s life in the same way any person is discipled into his or her culture . . . we need to focus our educational efforts not on isolated verbalizations of Truth, but on shaping a community in which truth is lived as reality. We need to focus our educational efforts on understanding and using the Church, the Body of Christ, as a culture within which persons who receive the gift of God’s life are to be involved, and through this involvement to be socialized into all that it means to become like Him.
Such an approach is predicated on Richards’ view quoted elsewhere in this paper: God routinely works through natural means in supernatural ways in order (it might be added) to accomplish supernatural goals. Among other things, this process of being socialized into the Christian community and body takes time: growth, whether spiritual or physical, cannot be scheduled. As secular educators have noted, "learning cannot be rushed; the complex cognitive activity of information integration requires time."
Another of Richards’ many significant points stressed that, in contrast to secular institutions of learning, the goal of Christian education and discipleship was not to produce a product, i.e., a person with a cognitive set of knowledge or facts that can be recited upon demand. The focus of the church, he said, should be “to supply what is needed for the process of growth to proceed normally and healthily,” since it is to be “concerned with life, and with the growth of eternal life within the human personality, toward a likeness to the God who gives it.” The observation of Caine and Caine, cited previously, bears reemphasis at this point: secular education (and, sadly, Christian education) has failed and is failing because it has confused knowledge about something for knowledge of something: “experience of is not the same as knowing about.”
The historic and traditional approach to education, both secular and sacred, in the Western world has been based on a limited conceptualization of learning, as well as a limited definition of knowledge. Education has approached learning based on the presuppositions of Plato, who argued that “if a man only knew the Good, he would surely choose it.” This pre-Christian, as well as non-Christian, view has been accepted without question by a secular community that wants to believe that human beings are basically good and only do wrong because of lack of knowledge and education. The Christian community, which certainly should know better, has adopted the secular approach without examining the philosophical foundation upon which it rests.
Brain-Based Learning
How do people learn? The answer to this question will shape the subsequent approach to Christian education and discipleship. Earlier models of learning proved to be erroneous and an attitude of caution – even skepticism – is understandable for educators in the secular profession of education. For Christians, however, such cynicism is eliminated by a simple, yet critical, fact: the methods derived from and founded upon the brain-based model of learning are consistent with the methods and approaches utilized by Jesus Christ in His training of His twelve disciples. The effectiveness of the approach does not ultimately depend on the underlying, explanatory theory. It is possible that the neurological theory of brain-based learning might be wrong at various points, but to the extent brain-based methods are patterned after those employed by our Lord, Christian educators can be confident that the approach will be effective and that the desired results in education and discipleship will be achieved.
Disciples are not made overnight; maturity is not attained through a one-time reading of the Bible. At least one of the reasons for this is found in God’s creation of the human brain: in order for attitudes to be reoriented and behavior to change, the brain must go through a process of “re-wiring” itself. The longer the old habits have existed, and the more frequently the attitudes have been reinforced and the behavior repeated, the stronger the neural connections will be in the brain. The saying is, “cells that fire together wire together.” On the positive side, this resistance results in personality being relatively stable and provides a sense of predictably about one’s self as well as others in the community of believers. On the negative side, however, it means that sanctification is a long-time, hard-work miracle.
Albeit slowly, learning changes the brain: new synapses are created as neurons begin to make new connections, which spawn new networks and schemas in the brain. Not only is the brain changed structurally, it is also altered functionally: perspective and awareness change so that both attitudes and behavior are modified as a result. The process is made more difficult by the fact that different areas of the brain are frequently not “on the same page,” i.e., while one area of the brain may welcome a new connection, an area further along the network may not be ready to make more connections. This necessitates a repetition of instruction (Rom 15.15, Gal 1.9, Gal 4.19, Php 3.1, Heb 5.12) until the transformation is complete.
Learning involves three closely related factors: memory, transfer of learning, and types of knowledge. An understanding of each and the interaction of the three are necessary for the implementation of brain-based Christian education and discipleship.
Memory
Although there are a variety of ways to categorize memory, the approach taken here is to classify memory in terms of taxon (rote, static) memory and locale (spatial, dynamic) memory. Both are involved in long-term memory and are thus instructive in developing an approach to education and discipleship that is effective. The distinction between the two is not always appreciated but is critical in tapping into the natural learning process of the brain.
A trip to the store illustrates the difference between the two systems: taxon memory is employed to remember the handful of items on the shopping list: light bulbs, socks, dog food, batteries, and lip gloss. If the list is not written down, it needs to be repeated mentally so that no items are forgotten. Locale memory, in contrast, occurs within a context and is almost effortless. How many light bulbs were in each package? “There were two in the package.” What color were the socks? “White.” How much was spent? “Exactly $23.85.” Such facts are learned and remembered, but it is doubtful that the shopper walked about the store rehearsing the information: “Two in the package, two in the package, two in the package” or “White, white, white.” Locale memory is natural and usually achieved without conscious effort. It is this form of memory that is generally lacking in traditional approaches to education.
Taxon (or rote) memory is the type of memory that has been overwhelmingly utilized in traditional approaches to education. It is also reflected in Scripture memorization programs in the church wherein verses and passages of the Bible are learned through repetition and rehearsal. Its association with traditional education does not mean that taxon memory is out-dated or without value: it serves very important functions. Basic things essential for survival are acquired through the process of taxon memory, as are other facts such as the multiplication tables, the alphabet, and telephone numbers.
In addition to being acquired through repetition and rehearsal, taxon memories must rely heavily on continued repetition and rehearsal for their maintenance. These memories are also affected by external rewards and punishment: whether striving for a grade in a classroom or a gold star in Sunday School, the hope of gain or the avoidance of loss motivate the student to memorize. The underlying ideas and principles, however, are usually ignored in the process.
Taxon memories are not easily changed: anyone who has tried to correct flaws in a golf swing or tennis stroke is aware of this frustrating fact. Such habits and patterns are stored in taxon memory and resist modification. On the positive side, repeated practice of proper techniques or behaviors will produce desirable effects. Those of us who learned as children to swim or ride a bicycle know that the skills (that is, neural schemas) remain intact once they have been mastered sufficiently.
Two additional facts concerning taxon memory are important. First, facts in the taxon system are isolated, i.e., “they exist as stable entities . . . that can be called on and used in a fairly predictable manner.” Although learned apart from context, the items in taxon memory are nevertheless available to used with other items stored in memory. For example, learning to drive a car does not require new learning each time the driver gets behind the wheel of a different vehicle. What was learned in the first vehicle can be applied to subsequent, relatively similar situations. Second, a great deal of what is learned through taxon memory is not immediately meaningful. The rules of arithmetic or spelling are not especially valuable to the student, but their importance becomes obvious later when items must be calculated and recorded by the student.
Locale or spatial memory refers to that which is learned and remembered through living in the world. Caine and Caine explain that
. . . everything that happens to us happens in space. This is so fundamental that we overlook it, and it needs to be made apparent. It means, in part, that we are always operating in a very rich physical context. . . . Regardless of what we are doing, we are always in a physical context – and this affects our comprehension.
Living in a physical context results in the creation of spatial maps or neural networks in the brain:
We rely on spatial maps to guide our movements and interactions within our surroundings. We use “maps” here to describe and interconnecting representation of places in the external world. The presence of these maps is absolutely crucial to the operation of our lives. After all, we must remember where we are in order to interact with the world safely and effectively.
Every person possesses a spatial memory system that includes not only information regarding where they are but also what they are doing. Recalling a drive in mountains, for example, will result in memories of particular scenes or portions of the road, as well as provide the reason for the trip, e.g., to go with friends to the top of Mt. Evans in Colorado. Spatial maps are quickly produced in the brain and continually updated as additional or more accurate information is gained. In addition, the more senses involved in the formation of the map, the better the map will be and the more readily it can be retrieved.
Even as the brain stores information related to space, so does it create thematic maps. These neural organizations are
mental maps of information . . . [which] exist as part of an interconnected pattern. . . . Thematic maps are critical for establishing more sophisticated links that aid in the transfer of knowledge. . . . Thus there may be significant themes in our life, such as the need for a personal relationship or political ideology, that operate to organize and shape much of our behavior. . . . these themes serve as mental representations of the type of fluid, complex, and interactive relationships found in maps representing physical space. Our natural mental maps, therefore, seem to be at the heart of thematic teaching. That same memory system is engaged when we use stories, metaphors, celebrations, imagery, and music, all of which are powerful tools for brain-based learning.
Even a superficial reading of the gospels reveals that such tools were used by Jesus Christ in His training of the twelve disciples. Jesus was the superlative storyteller, as illustrated in His use of what befell the Galileans and those upon whom the tower in Siloam fell (Lk 13.1-5). The story emphasized His point: that the residents of Jerusalem were no better than those people, and that judgment awaited them unless they repented. His parables, which are extended metaphors, are known by Christians and non-Christians alike; they are unforgettable word pictures used to underscore important truths. At the Last Supper, He employed celebration – the Passover – and combined it with imagery – the bread is His body, the cup His blood – and music (Mt 26.17-30). Jesus did not require the disciples to memorize the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, but instead relied on brain-based teaching techniques to establish the memory and lesson in their minds.
One of the most powerful and least understood aspects of locale memory is that the internal maps that we all have are partly organized on the basis of concepts and ideas . . . A concept is essentially a way of integrating facts and information. The more powerful the ideas and concepts that we have, the greater the capacity to absorb, integrate, organize, and synthesize information – and so make sense of experience. That is why the curriculum should always make categories and concepts primary and facts secondary.
Sadly, the church has largely followed the example of the secular educational system in stressing facts instead of concepts, rules rather than principles, or church attendance over fellowship.
The distinction between taxon and locale memory can be thought of as the difference between a route and a map: taxon memory is like a route, while locale memory is similar to a map. When planning a trip, for example, one might employ a computer program to find the quickest route from Chicago to Los Angeles. The route would provide all information necessary to get from one point to the other; this is analogous to taxon memory. The route, however, would not tell you what areas of interest were nearby or what alternate routes might be possible. Locale memory, on the other hand, provides a map of the territory from Chicago to Los Angeles and pulls together a great deal of information such as terrain, political boundaries, points of interest along the way, and other paths to arrive at the destination. Routes are obviously important and, at times, are all that is necessary for a given task, but locale memory suggests other routes and adds richness and context to the task. Locale memory also makes creativity and insight possible since it provides meaning and breadth to the information.
Transfer of Learning
Transfer of learning is “the ability to extend what has been learned in one context to new contexts.” It is in transfer of learning that taxon memory and locale memory come together, the former providing the raw material and the latter generating both the conceptual framework and the index system for organizing and accessing the material.
Contrasting the two memory systems reveals the transfer potential of each. An example of the flexibility and adaptability of locale memory is reflected in a simple task such as counting backwards from one hundred by threes. Understanding the principles of subtraction, it is relatively easy to produce the numbers: 100, 97, 94, 91, 88, 85, etc.
The rigidity of taxon memory is demonstrated in the following parlor game. A person is asked to recite the alphabet within ten seconds; this is easily done. They are then asked to list the months of the calendar year in ten seconds; this, too, is accomplished. But when asked to recite the months of the year in alphabetical order within thirty seconds, the person has considerable difficulty even though the material is remarkably familiar. The reason for the difficulty lies in the manner in which it was learned: both the alphabet and the months of the year are usually learned through memorization, i.e., taxon memory. It is obviously good to know things such as the alphabet and the months of the year, but the manner in which they are learned may make transfer of knowledge problematic in certain situations.
Several influences have a bearing on the ability of a person to learn new information and to apply the learning in new situations. Perhaps the most important factor is the degree to which earlier learning is understood.
All new learning involves transfer based on previous learning, and this fact has important implications for the design of instruction that helps students learn. The first factor that influences successful transfer is degree of mastery of the original subject. Without an adequate level of initial learning, transfer cannot be expected.
Transfer of learning rests heavily upon locale memory and is impeded by taxon memory alone. A grasp of principles and the presence of abstract, thematic mapping allow the student to apply previous learning to new material. The rigid, concrete organization of taxon memory makes change and novel thinking difficult.
Examples of Jesus Christ using previous learning as the basis for new learning are found throughout the gospels. He relied on His disciples familiarity with the Old Testament code in the Sermon on the Mount as indicated by the recurring formula, “You have heard . . . but I say to you . . . “ (Mt 5.21-48). Jesus assumed his disciples knowledge of the requirements of the Law as interpreted by the Jewish leaders and used contrast to highlight the point He was making in each instance.
The effectiveness of His parables also depended upon His listeners’ prior knowledge of common, daily responsibilities: the activity of a sower in planting seed (Mt 13), of a shepherd caring for a flock (Jn 10), or a vinedresser tending a vine (Jn 15). The variety of figures employed by Christ assured that His disciples would have relative expertise in at least one of the areas upon which His parables were based.
With Nicodemus, Jesus drew the Pharisee’s attention to Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness and the salvation that resulted; He built upon that knowledge by explaining that eternal life would be gained in just the same way (Jn 3.14-15). Christ could be confident that Nicodemus, a leader among the Pharisees, would have committed to memory most if not all of the Old Testament. What might have been somewhat unfamiliar or vague allusion to another audience was undoubtedly a familiar historical fact to Pharisee. The comparison between the lifting up of the object of faith for the Israelites and the lifting up of The Object of faith for all of humanity would be impossible for Nicodemus to miss.
Jesus also counted on prior learning when dealing with the masses which followed Him. To a grumbling group of superficial followers, He capitalized on the Jews’ knowledge of manna in the wilderness to declare that He, in contrast, was the true bread of life which came down from heaven (Jn 6.30-35). And, at a Festival of Booths, He seized upon a poignant moment to make a point with the crowd: for the first seven days of the festival, the priests carried water from the Pool of Siloam and poured it into a silver basin by the altar outside the temple; on the last day of the feast, however, the priest did not perform this ritual. Jesus took advantage of the moment to teach the people that He was the source of rivers of living water (Jn 7.37-39).
Finally, to the woman at the well in Samaria, who certainly understood the nature of thirst and drawing water, Jesus declared that “whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life” (Jn 4.13-14).
A second influence on transfer of learning is the extent to which understanding is the focus of learning rather than mere memorization or learning a set of procedures. A set of rules is easily understood and obeyed, as evidenced by the Pharisaic scribes, who by the time of Christ had developed an extensive and burdensome code to be followed. If the underlying principles are not taught, however, then the student or disciple will not be able to apply the learning in situations that are not identical to what is prescribed or proscribe in the code.
It this problem that Jesus addressed in the portion of the Sermon on the Mount alluded previously. The people knew that the Commandment declared that it was wrong to kill, but Jesus focused on the spirit or principle of the Law, which in this case was anger. Similarly, the people knew that adultery was wrong; Christ taught the principle that lust of any kind was wrong. Throughout His ministry, our Lord was teaching His disciples the principle, or spirit, of the law; once the disciples had a grasp of the principles, they were better prepared to understand the true nature and scope of the Old Testament law.
A third factor which enhances transfer is a sufficient amount of time for the subject matter to be mastered; the amount of time varies with the amount of material to be learned. Jesus spent roughly 1,200 days with His disciples and, except for a few retreats to the mountains to pray or to briefly return to home His home, it appears that He was with them continuously. If only 10 hours each day were times when the disciples could observe and learn from Him, that means they had approximately 12,000 hours of instruction from Jesus Christ. The average seminary student, in contrast, has less than 1,000 hours of face-to-face contact with professors. The amount of time required to learn and to master lessons, tasks, and responsibilities is routinely underestimated.
Learning lessons in a variety of situations and environments also increases the likelihood that transfer will occur.
How tightly learning is tied to contexts depends on how the knowledge is acquired . . . Research has indicated that transfer across contexts is especially difficult when a subject is taught only in a single context . . . When a subject is taught in multiple contexts, however, and includes examples that demonstrate wide application of what is being taught, people are more likely to abstract the relevant features of concepts and to develop a flexible representation of knowledge.
Once again, it was not in a synagogue or other type of formal, structured classroom that Jesus taught the disciples what He desired them to know. The Lord taught from boats, on hillsides, in the courts of the temple, in a vineyard, in homes, reclining at dinners, and walking through the fields and countryside. The disciples learned firsthand that spirituality was to be woven into the fabric of their everyday lives, not limited to a classroom or auditorium on certain days of the week.
Types of Knowledge
To move beyond the limited, ineffective models of traditional education demands a broadening of the types of knowledge to be acquired. There are basically three types of knowledge which can be acquired by a student or disciple: surface knowledge, technical or scholastic knowledge, and natural (or dynamical) knowledge. The education industry and the church have restricted knowledge to essentially surface knowledge and technical knowledge. Surface knowledge is
the product of rote learning. . . . It does not matter whether the learner understands the content, only that the content is memorized. Thus, content includes facts and skills that are memorized irrespective of how the learner feels about them or what the learner thinks about them.
Surface knowledge is unfortunately similar to that which is routinely emphasized in many churches: verses and passages of Scripture are memorized coldly, removed from the context of life. This also explains why Christians can quote Scripture without having a corresponding change in personality or behavior. God warned Israel of such religious behavior in Is 29.13-14:
Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; And the wisdom of their wise men will perish, And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed."
For Scripture to have a transforming impact on a believer, it must be learned in a context which involves and connects all aspects of the person’s experience and existence. Caine explains that
the essential limitation of surface knowledge is that meaning and understanding are frequently irrelevant. Consequently, the knowledge is simply instrumental. The ability to transfer and apply such knowledge to other more dynamic contests is extremely limited.
Technical or scholastic knowledge “consists of the ideas, principles, and procedures that are traditionally regarded as the core content of any subject or discipline.” The chief limitation of such knowledge is that it “lacks a quality that makes it available for solving real problems or for dealing with complex situations.” This difficulty is frequently seen in the church, for example, by those who invest the time and energy to learn systematic theology and yet, when asked to apply the sovereignty and goodness of God to a situation of human tragedy, are at a loss to explain how theology intersects everyday life.
In contrast, natural knowledge refers to the basic motivations which govern people and provide a person with a sense of direction and purpose. Natural knowledge includes two additional concepts, deep meanings and felt meanings. “Deep meanings are the source of most intrinsic motivation . . . [they] shape what we are willing to look at and how we interpret our experiences.” In short, deep meanings are the worldview or philosophy of life that a person possesses. They not only determine how an individual interprets or understands what is experienced, but even limit what is perceived. Deep meanings are schemas in the brain that provide the mental maps for navigating and making sense of life. As such, they are the focus of Paul’s exhortation in Rom 12.1-2:
Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
The transformation to which Paul refers is the equivalent of deep meanings. Such a metamorphosis, he says, will change the believer’s perspective or worldview so that they will be able to perceive the world and life differently. It will enable them to understand God’s moral will, i.e., "that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” No longer limited to an earthly, human understanding of the world and life, the believer is now able to see life from a divine perspective and to make sense of experiences based on God’s plan and purpose.
Felt meaning “is an almost visceral sense of relationship, an unarticulated sense of connectedness that ultimately culminates in insight.” Felt meanings are what make experiences individually significant: life is not a cold, sterile, academic experience to be analyzed, but intensely personal and important. The connection of thought and feeling is the sin qua non of understanding and learning: thoughts disconnected from feelings are sterile and feelings without thought are aimless. Thus, Jesus repeatedly excoriates the Pharisees for having knowledge without mercy (e.g., Mt 23.23 ff.) and Paul bemoans the condition of his countrymen who, although possessing zeal, are without knowledge (Rom 10.2).
A primary difficulty with the traditional model of education is that it separates the material to be learned from the learner, as though learning were the production of a commodity rather than an ongoing process. This approach is based on an inadequate understanding of how the human brain learns: the traditional model, both secular and Christian, regards learning as a simple process of acquiring information which, following Plato, will automatically lead to changes in attitudes and behaviors. It treats the material to be learned as separate and detached from the person doing the learning.
Brain research show that to be largely wrong. As people learn about the world in meaningful ways, the learning changes them. They are changed psychologically, and they are changed physiologically . . . They are literally reshaped and reformed.
One of the characteristics of natural knowledge is that the learner is able to apply knowledge in new situations and to come to new conclusions. This was evident in both Peter and Stephen in the early church. Both applied the teachings of the Old Testament to the events that were occurring in Jerusalem following the coming of the Holy Spirit. There is no record that either Peter or Stephen was reciting a previously memorized sermon learned from Jesus Christ during His ministry. Because learning had occurred at a felt-meaning level, both of them spontaneously delivered powerful messages based on knowledge which had not been connected to the situation previously.
Natural or perceptual knowledge “is what we end up with as a result of our constructing our own meanings,” or, for Christians, what results when the Holy Spirit transforms our neural schemas so that we are able to view life and situations from a new, divine perspective. Knowledge is not rigidly connected to one particular situation or application, but has evolved into a principle which may be applied in a variety of settings. The corresponding biblical concept for natural knowledge is wisdom, which is the ability to live life skillfully and to see life from God’s perspective. In brain terminology, natural knowledge is the process of developing and applying personally relevant and meaningful neural schemas to the entirety of one’s life. It is a perceptual grid through which life is filtered.
This is the knowledge that is the gateway to real power because it is the knowledge that is indispensable for effective action. It is the type of knowledge that can only be gained from real experience. It is dynamic or performance knowledge. Peculiarly, and often unknown to the people who most highly value it, high-level thinking and abstract ideas also become dynamic in the same way, that is, through use in life. [emphasis theirs]
Conditions Required for Learning
One major, flawed assumption of the traditional model of learning is that all that is required of the learner is attendance and attention. Learners are presumed to be ready to learn and teachers ready to teach simply by beginning at an arbitrary time at an agreed upon location. Not surprisingly, more is required for both learner and teacher in order for learning to take place. This section explores necessary conditions for learning to occur and the different levels of knowledge to be acquired in the process of learning.
Three basic conditions are required for learning to take place: relaxed alertness, orchestrated immersion, and active processing. Relaxed alertness refers to a state of mind characterized by low threat and high challenge: learners must feel emotionally safe within the context of an honest, supportive yet confrontational community which allows for growth and experimentation. This condition, which is the optimal state of mind for learning, is deliberately achieved. It includes relaxing physically, meditating purposefully (focusing on specific biblical content rather than attempting to empty one’s mind), and assuring that the physical environment supports such a state of mind. Providing students with a safe, non-threatening learning experience requires first of all that the teacher feels neither threatened nor bored. Learning needs to be safe enough not to be threatening, but challenging enough not to be boring.
Immersion in the learning experience is based on the finding that “to some extent all meaningful learning is experiential.” Elements that contribute to immersion in learning include “an event or situation that has some aspect of a narrative or story form;” a physical environment that supports the narrative; genuine, supportive social relationships, and, a wide range of experiences involving as many of the senses as possible. The more that the experience resembles real-life, the more effective the teaching.
Orchestrated immersion involves not only personal interaction with the teacher or discipler, but an opportunity for learners to engage in long-term, open-ended, and self-directed studies which are sufficiently challenging so as to produce intrinsic rewards. One need look no further than the process of sanctification, a life-long pursuit not to be completed in this lifetime, for an example of such a challenge for the Christian. And more than merely being immersed in the study, the Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and provided with the power to do the work.
The third and final condition necessary for learning to occur is active processing of the experience by the learner. This means that, guided by the teacher or discipler, sufficient practice and rehearsal is provided to allow the learner to begin to make connections and create new meanings with the new knowledge being acquired. To broaden and deepen the learning, students must be given an opportunity to actively process the material and the experience.
Active processing includes thinking critically . . . asking probing questions, exploring alternative perspectives and points of view, solving problems, recognizing details, and searching for big ideas and broad implications. Thus, active processing leads to true understanding and mastery of content. . . . [It] allows students to begin to take charge of learning and the development of personal meanings.
John wrote, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (Jn 21.25). It is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus Christ spent hours around campfires, on walks, at meals, or in boats discussing and rehashing what had transpired during the day, giving the disciples time to process the events and lessons to which they had been witnesses.
If there is a single obstacle to achieving natural learning, it is a phenomenon labeled “downshifting,” which is a student’s or disciple’s reaction to an imagined or actual threat. Downshifting may be defined as “a psychophysiological response to perceived threat accompanied by a sense of helplessness or fatigue or both.” It culminates in a sense of inadequacy, incompetence, or a lack of self-efficacy. Threat, in this definition, is anything that causes a person to become fearful in anyway, and especially includes loss of self-esteem. Its impact on education and discipleship is significant because,
This feeling results in a reversion to deeply entrenched, early learned behaviors and programming, and to the sorts of primitive responses associated with the “fight or flight” response. We also find it difficult to perceive new opportunities, recognize context cues, and deal with uncertainty. Sometimes we even find it impossible to access ideas and procedures that we already know.
In the face of such a hostile environment, students become more rigid and less open to new experiences, explanations, or insights. Students not only become defensive, but have a restricted ability to adapt to new situations. The establishment of “teacher-as-authority” is often enough to cause students to be defensive and make new learning almost impossible.
According to Caine and Caine, at least five classroom conditions contribute to downshifting:
1. Pre-specified “correct” outcomes have been established by an agent other than the learners. There are certainly situations and lessons where there is but one correct answer, but there are also many that allow for a variety of responses. Implied pressure to be correct generally results in students searching for the “right” answer rather than exploring the subject for the purpose of gaining understanding. The possibility of being wrong poses a threat to students leading to downshifting. It is remarkable how infrequently Jesus Christ rebuked his disciples for a “wrong” answer and refrained from criticizing them for at-times impulsive, inane questions.
2. Personal meaning is limited. Learning requires a connection between what students already know and the new information presented. In the absence of such a connection, rote memorization results since creativity is eliminated through the disconnect. It is perhaps not without significance that Jesus Christ never assigned verses and passages from the Old Testament for the disciples to memorize; instead, He incorporated Scripture into His teaching and connected with everyday events with which the disciples were familiar: weather, fishing, farming, etc.
3. Rewards and/or punishment are externally controlled and relatively immediate. While students have some control over performance on a test, they do not have any control over the person who evaluates and rewards them. When rewards are derived from an internal sense of accomplishing a task or acquiring new information, personal involvement is high even when rewards are delayed. Immediate rewards promote immediate answers and tend to eliminate the time necessary for understanding to take place. As believers, we understand the simplicity of acquiring rewards which will be given at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 14.10, 2 Cor 5.10). It is within each Christian’s power to accumulate rewards.
4. Restrictive time lines are given. Deadlines certainly have their place (Mt 24.15-18, Jn 13.27), but a continual pressure to learn within a limited amount of time is counter-productive. It results in students working to get done instead of working to explore meaning and/or options. Again, it is noteworthy that the Son of Man, knowing how brief His time was to train the disciples, never seemed to be hurried or rushed and never prodded them to work more quickly.
5. Work to be done is relatively unfamiliar and little support is available. The unfamiliar attempted without support produces uncertainty and gives no assurance that success will result. Jesus Christ not only built a community, but promised that He would not leave them alone but would send them the Holy Spirit to be in them (Jn 16.7); He also assured them, “I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Mt 28.20).
When people downshift, a variety of things occur. First, self-protection becomes important and pleasing the teacher or discipler with the “correct” answer results in memorization and people-pleasing behavior. Genuine understanding and meaningful learning are inhibited by a desire to gain immediate approval from the instructor. There is also a diminished ability to adjust to new situations: students or disciples “persist in set modes of behavior in a fairly rigid and unresponsive way.” Instead of being able to tolerate the uncertainty of unanswered questions, individuals fall back on what is familiar: early and deeply programmed behaviors and responses from childhood, including ignoring people, procrastinating, avoidance, and impatience. Desiring to belong to the group, the person may adopt a set of beliefs and attitudes that are hand-me-down at best and become adversarial toward others who do not hold to the same opinions or positions.
It is not difficult to imagine – or recall – times of downshifting in the local church. Clearly there are correct answers in the Bible, but many people are embarrassed to admit that they don’t know the answer to a question. Peer pressure is considerable for children, adolescents, and adults. The failure of teachers, preachers, or disciplers to make lessons or sermons personally relevant contributes to downshifting in the church, and the absence of a truly nurturing and supportive community is too common. If it were possible to measure, it is likely that downshifting would be found to be the norm throughout the church on any given Sunday morning. Brain-based learning, however, decreases the prevalence of downshifting and enhances the possibility of genuine learning taking place.
One of the primary purposes in the calling of the twelve disciples, according to Mark, was so that they might spend time with Jesus (3.14). This was their apprenticeship, a time when they would learn lessons from the Master not only through His messages but by accompanying Him during more than three years of ministry. Jesus did not primarily train the disciples didactically but by having them with Him and giving them ministerial opportunities and responsibilities.
Jesus Christ, admittedly not intending to present a treatise on effective brain-based discipling techniques, nevertheless modeled the conditions and principles discussed here. In loving His disciples He created an atmosphere of relaxed alertness; by being with them continuously He immersed them for more than three years in a learning-rich environment, and through repetition, questions, and fellowship gave the disciples opportunities to actively process all that they were learning.
Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the effectiveness of His strategy was demonstrated by the awareness of the rulers, elders, scribes, and family of high priests who, “as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus” (Ac 4.13). Empowered by the Holy Spirit, Peter and John manifested the effects of three-plus years of learning first-hand what it meant to minister, preach, and witness. They changed the face of the world because they had received a real-life education and had been discipled into being leaders of the early church.
The key, in teaching, is to make sure that the context supports the content . . . One of the most powerful aspects of context is the social setting and the social relationships that develop . . . A crucial aspect of one’s context is the society in which one is a part . . . Because the brain/mind is social, one’s ideas and perceptions are always shaped in some ways by the ideas and perceptions of other people . . . that is a further reason why establishing good community is the indispensable foundation for developing better schools.
The condition that made such learning possible was the safety and ruthless honesty which had always distinguished the example of Jesus Christ in their training. The context He provided for the disciples was the environment which facilitated the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
Brain-Based Learning Principles
Geoffrey and Renate Caine are the two most prolific writers in the area of brain-based learning and teaching; they have developed twelve principles which they have found to be helpful for educators. An understanding of the principles is valuable in effecting the desired results in Christian education and discipleship. Those principles are:
1. The brain is a complex adaptive system.
2. The brain is a social brain.
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through “patterning.”
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception.
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory.
10. Learning is development.
11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Every brain is uniquely organized.
There are implications for Christian education and discipleship that grow out of the principles. The following observations and applications are drawn from the various works of Caine and Caine:
Because the brain is a complex information- and experience-processing organ, no new information or experience is assimilated in isolation. A new lesson, for example, is learned in a particular context and associated with numerous other events and factors occurring at the same time. This being the case, the educator or discipler needs to make an effort to coordinate the various aspects of the learning environment so that the entire brain is involved in the learning experience. Peter’s recollection of the Mount of Transfiguration is typical of the historical narratives throughout the Bible: the report of the lesson learned is embedded in rich, environmental detail.
The brain is a learning organ and will learn naturally when allowed. Obstacles to learning must be identified and removed, if possible, to allow the person to learn naturally. This is similar to Richard’s concept of acculturation: people learn best in contexts which are non-threatening and where learning may not be intentional, although teaching is. Mark records that Jesus Christ’s purpose in calling the twelve disciples was simply so that they could be with Him; it was not so that they might change the world or establish the Kingdom of God on earth, either of which would have overwhelmed them.
Because the human person is monistic, learning involves and engages the whole person. Factors such as stress, nutrition, exercise, and other physical concerns are important aspects of the learning environment. Jesus was routinely concerned with the physical needs of His followers and Himself (Mt 14.15-16, Mk 8.1-2, Jn 4.8).
The brain seeks to make sense of experiences and will compel a person to do whatever is necessary to achieve such understanding. It flourishes in familiar surroundings but also desires new and challenging experiences. An educational setting, therefore, must be safe and stable while also allowing for discovery and new experiences. Real-life experiences are preferred over artificial settings, and the more choices the individual is faced with, the more opportunities to learn and grow.
The brain makes sense of the world and life through the development of neural networks or schemas which allow the person to organize and categorize experiences. Meaningless patterns are resisted and rejected. The challenge for the educator or discipler is to focus and channel the patterning. “For teaching to be really effective, a learner must be able to create meaningful and personally relevant patterns.”
Emotions are crucial to learning: feelings cannot be separated from thoughts. Attention must be given to the person’s emotional needs since the immediate experience will influence subsequent learning, too. The learning environment needs to be supportive, accepting, and respectful; the freedom to fail or be wrong must be present. The touching restoration of Peter following his three denials reveals the nature of the environment that Christ established and maintained for His disciples, not only in personal failure but especially in such failure.
The two hemispheres of the brain have distinct functions, including an attention to analysis by one and to synthesis on the other. Effective teaching, therefore, will include explanation of the whole as well as of the parts. This is vividly illustrated in Paul’s treatment of “body life” in 1 Cor 12: “For the body is not one member, but many,” he states in v. 14 in explaining the importance of every individual member of the body of Christ. He quickly shifts the focus, however, and declares, “But now there are many members, but one body” (v. 20). Attending to both the whole and the parts provides believers with a complete picture and engages both hemispheres of the brain.
The brain is able to process information on which it is consciously focused, but at the same time takes in what lies beyond conscious attention. In learning, the brain pays attention to the total environment. Instructors can facilitate such peripheral learning by including “background,” environmental items that support the focus of the lesson. There is no indication that Christ told the disciples to count the baskets of leftovers they collected after the feeding of the four thousand and the five thousand, but they were able to tell Him when asked about it later. Christ drew their attention to the baskets in order to teach that He would be faithful in supplying their needs.
The brain learns consciously and unconsciously; thus, individuals learn more than they understand. Experiences are remembered even more than content. Instructors can utilize unconscious learning by bringing things to the level of consciousness through activities that provide opportunities for reflection, and through the use of parables and metaphors that require associations that would otherwise go unrecognized. Jesus’ repeated use of parables created visual images for the disciples which they were certain to remember at a later time.
The brain organizes memories through rote and natural systems, but the latter does not require rehearsal, results in immediate learning, and is inexhaustible. Natural memory is also stimulated by new and challenging experiences; information that is divorced from prior experience and/or actual experience is processed by rote memory. Although memorization via the rote memory system has its place, it will not result in changes in attitudes and behaviors unless the information is meaningfully connected to the personal world of the learner. It is noteworthy that Jesus did not teach the disciples things that they would need to know later, but rather used real-life situations as opportunities for teaching.
The brain will downshift when threatened or bored but will learn most effectively when challenged in a supportive environment. Thus, educators and disciplers need to first make certain that students and disciples feel safe and loved. This allows the person to relax and absorb instruction through all the senses. Peter again provides an illustration: in a series of situations which he perceived as threatening, the disciple resorted to old, familiar behaviors. He denied, swore an oath, and even cursed to avoid the trouble he was certain awaited him.
Given its complexity, it is obvious that every brain – and every person – is unique. A learning environment needs to be broad and flexible enough to allow each person to learn according to their own preferences and at their own pace. Paul emphasizes the unique gifts and attributes of individual believers in his discussion of body life in 1 Cor 12.1-19.
Such a list of principles may seem overwhelming at first, but what is required for brain-based learning to be effective is no more – and no less – than the supportive, loving, accepting community and relationships to which Jesus Christ has called believers. Once again, a study of Christ’s training of His disciples reflects each of the principles in action. To engage in brain-based learning is to follow the example of the New Testament and to obey the commands of Christ.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Chapter Five
CONCLUSION
This paper has demonstrated several important issues and facts critical to effective Christian education and discipleship. First, it has argued that the debate over an integration of theology and psychology has been misdirected: the two do not need to be blended but rather relegated to their proper places. The hard science of neurology is a supportive discipline that can offer insight into how God works in human beings to accomplish His will in them. By working in and through the natural processes of the brain, God produces results that can only be described as supernatural. Neurology also demonstrates that sanctification is a process requiring time, not an immediate accomplishment or a mystical event requiring non-verifiable, extra-biblical philosophies for realization. Most importantly, neurological findings have been shown to be in agreement with the teaching of the Bible.
The question of partitions in the human has also been dismissed: rather than being an imagined amalgamation of parts, the human soul has been shown to be a single unity. The human being does not have a soul, but is a soul; the soul has both material and immaterial dimensions, but the immaterial is embedded in and dependent upon the material while the material is dependent upon the immaterial for life. The immaterial soul, in turn, consists of neural pathways and schemas that result in distinguishable functions of the brain which the Bible refers to as the soul, heart, and mind; the soul, heart, and mind account for all of the other immaterial qualities of a person such as reason, compassion, love, and will.
The neurologically-informed model of the human constitution has been applied to Christian education and discipleship, demonstrating a need for drastic changes in the approach of the church to fulfill the Great Commission. Old, ineffective models of education, borrowed without inspection from the secular education industry, have been exposed as based on non-Christian and non-scientific foundations. The brain-based approach required by human neurology has been demonstrated to be exactly what Jesus Christ used in His training of His disciples. A call for the utilization of brain-based learning techniques, therefore, is a call to return to the model provided the church in the New Testament.
Because the issue of Christian education and discipleship is directly connected to the revealed word of God as well as the purposes of God in the lives of His people, it was necessary to demonstrate the biblical nature, viability, and reasonableness of each of the three major thrusts of the paper. It was first imperative to present a Christian psychology and anthropology, drawn from both special and general revelations, that showed that people are monistic in nature. This was important because the Bible consistently portrays and treats people as monistic, not because the current position of the neurosciences points to such unity. This understanding returns the church to a more biblical concern for the totality of human experience and away from an approach which cares primarily – or only – about a person’s immaterial status as saved or unsaved. Doing good to all men is not limited to sharing the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, although it must include that to be genuinely good. The Christian psychology presented here encourages and facilitates a more wholistic love for people; it also provided the foundation for the subsequent discussion of neurology and spirituality. A monistic view of the person also necessitates an approach in Christian education and discipleship that is not limited to a specific dimension of an individual – the mind – but is careful to engage the whole person.
The neurological section sought to explain how the human brain functions and to embed spirituality in its workings. The resulting model of sanctification is of value in understanding what takes place as the Holy Spirit transforms believers through the renewing of their minds, and also demonstrates how and where He does the work. By identifying the battlefield and realizing the nature of the battle, believers are better equipped to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in yielding to Him and in setting apart Jesus Christ as Lord in their lives (Gal 5.16,1 Pet 3.15).
The brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship, in turn, rests upon the model of Christian psychology and neurologically-informed sanctification. It was proven to be consistent with the approach of the New Testament and to grow out of the previously developed model. It was also demonstrated to be the method, practically if not theoretically, which Christ employed with His disciples in preparing them for the work after His death, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Having demonstrated the practical value of the Christian psychology developed in this paper, it is also of interest to reveal the explanatory and heuristic power of the model, too. This will be accomplished in two arenas. First, the model will be applied to the life of Jesus Christ during His earthly existence, including how His brain might have differed from those of others. Second, the model will seek to explain why such a wide range of counseling approaches can be effective. The model also strongly suggests that there is one approach that facilitates Christian growth and maturity more than others.
The Perfect Human Brain
Initially, it might seem strange or wrong to speculate about the neurological experience of the God-Man during His earthly life and ministry. For Christians, however, knowledge of and insight into the nature of God is profitable and edifying; that such study might occur at the level of neurology is certainly uncommon, but it is also a potential source of greater comprehension. To consider how Jesus Christ functioned during His humiliation is to consider how God desires to work in the life of all believers.
Jesus was born of a virgin; more importantly, He was a direct creation of the Holy Spirit and was not a part of Adam’s seed or under his federal headship, i.e., He was not born with personal, inherited, or imputed sin. This fact meant that it was possible for Him to grow, mature, and learn without the distorting and corrupting influences of sin on His brain and mind. Jesus’ perfect spirit had the ability to do what no other human has possessed since Adam’s fall: He could perfectly fellowship with and obey God, could have healthy relationships with others (as far as His part was concerned), and was never internally conflicted or confused. In contrast to Adam, however, Jesus was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of conception in His mother’s womb. By constantly living in submission to the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ spirit joined with God’s Spirit to maintain His sinless condition throughout His life.
In Jesus’ process of maturation, there would have been a system of perfect neural networks and schemas developed and maintained by the Holy Spirit. His life would have been – and was – a manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s work in His brain to produce the fruit of the Spirit and to perfectly reflect the image of God in a human person. All of Jesus’ instincts, desires, hopes, dreams, feelings, and behaviors were sinlessly created in His perfectly organized brain, heart, and mind through the initiating and superintending work of the Holy Spirit. Every thought was truly and absolutely taken captive to obedience (2 Cor 10.5). When Jesus’ senses were stimulated by an external source, the Holy Spirit superintended the response of His brain and produced the exact result in Him that would have been effected in the Father. Regardless of the nature of the stimulus, the Holy Spirit would have been free to act because Jesus’ spirit was in submission to the Holy Spirit. Whatever internal stimulus might occur, the same would be true: the Holy Spirit would intervene and create a perfect neural network or schema in Jesus. Jesus’ own spirit might initiate a desire or thought, but it would immediately be subjected to the oversight of the Holy Spirit. Many times, of course, the source of the internal stimulus was the Holy Spirit: at those times, Jesus’ own spirit would willingly submit to the Holy Spirit’s will.
This understanding clarifies a peculiar statement Jesus made during His earthly ministry. He said to His disciples, when explaining the parable of the fig tree, that He did not know the time of His second coming but that only the Father knew (Mt 26.36). If, as has been argued here, Jesus’ own spirit was voluntarily submitting to what the Holy Spirit revealed to Him, then there is no tension between His limited knowledge, on the one hand, and His divinity, on the other. In His own omniscient spirit, which was certainly divine, Jesus knew the time even as the Father knew the time. But He did not rely or draw upon His own spirit but freely accepted the limitations of being a human submitting to the Holy Spirit.
It is helpful to compare Jesus’ hypothesized mental life with those of Adam and Saul/Paul. Like Jesus, Adam started out without sin. He was free to learn and grow in the Garden of Eden without the damaging and disfiguring influence of either internal or external sin; furthermore, he, too, had a relationship with God that was unencumbered by sin and was able to see Him clearly for who He is.
Unlike Jesus, Adam was not indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit, but his own spirit was not fettered by the power of sin. Tragically, Adam’s own spirit was not able to resist the allure and power of sin. When, through disobedience, Adam allowed sin to enter into the created order, he also opened his own spirit and soul to the devastating effects of sin. Having chosen in that moment to live autonomously instead of in willing submission to God, Adam’s brain suddenly began to function differently. Earlier, godly neural networks and schemas remained, but emerging alongside them were new, mistaken, wrong, sinful, selfish, and corrupted networks and schemas. Whereas everything before had been in perfect harmony, both internally and externally, things now began to be conflicted and contradictory. Worst of all, his relationship with God was abruptly interrupted and fellowship was sorely strained and distant compared to how it was prior to the Fall.
The mental organization and experience of Saul of Tarsus presents a different contrast, one with which all Christians should be able to identify. Prior to his conversion, Saul was a good man: he was a devout and zealous Jew, committed to God and endeavoring to live in obedience to Him. But in contrast to Jesus and Adam, Saul did not begin life free of sin: being an offspring of Adam’s fallen race, he was crippled by the effects and influences of personal, imputed, and inherited sin from the moment of conception. There was never a time in Saul’s life when sin did not negatively affect his perception, development, and maturation. Saul’s spirit was never able to react to external stimuli as God had originally intended humans to respond, and his spirit also was bent to initiate internal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that were not consistent with God’s design. Due to the presence of sin, Saul was always in conflict: with others, with himself, and even with God. Twisted by sin, his spirit created neural schemas of God, people, and himself that were distortions of reality; crippled by sin, his spirit was unable to the good that he read and understood from the Old Testament.
At the moment of his salvation, when Saul became Paul, the future apostle’s brain became host to the indwelling Spirit of God. Whereas his own human spirit had been able to produce a form of life, the Holy Spirit created real life – eternal life – in Saul and he was literally born again within. The Holy Spirit began making new connections and ignoring old schemas that sin had created. As long as Paul’s spirit rested in and depended upon the Holy Spirit within him, new neural schemas were developed and old schemas avoided. Because Paul’s brain was ravaged by sin, it was not possible for the Holy Spirit to create flawless, perfect neural connections and schemas. This meant that, even when in submission to the Holy Spirit, Paul would still fall short of God’s perfect design for human living – grace was required for new living, even as it had been for new life.
Even so, qualitative changes began to emerge in Paul: his view of things began to change, slowly at first but then like an avalanche gaining momentum. Facts and data about God, people, and himself began to be organized in new ways, and new information on all three began to be added to his brain. Literally, Paul was being transformed by the renewing of his mind and was becoming able to discern what God’s moral will was (Rom 12.2). Since the handicap of sin would never be eliminated from his sinful, physical brain, it would become necessary for him to receive a new, spiritual body at the resurrection . The psuchikos would yield to the pneumatikos, and Paul’s born-again, purified spirit would be able to assimilate and accommodate all the truth of God. His new body and brain would become as Adam’s was intended to become: eternally committed and submitted to God.
Paul’s experience is the experience of every believer: the old, corrupting influences of the flesh remain and will never be overcome in this lifetime. By the grace and power of God, however, every believer has the opportunity to yield to the Holy Spirit and experience a transforming of the mind, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and an abiding in True Vine. Regardless of the model or approach employed, Christian education and discipleship can only be successful when the person is in possession of the life which the Holy Spirit brings at the moment of salvation and is in full submission to the work of the Holy Spirit in his or her life. When these two conditions are met, then the brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship presented here – but first described in the Bible – is the most effective manner in which to accomplish the Great Commission and live out the Great Commandment.
Brain-Based Learning and Christian Counseling
The model of Christian psychology has application for Christian counseling. Christian counseling, like is secular counterpart, is fractured into numerous schools and approaches, there being no agreed-upon “right” theory or methodology. All, however, seem to work: people get better and credit their counselor – or, for Christians, credit God working through their counselor – for the improvement in their lives.
The neurologically-embedded model presented here helps explain this puzzling state of affairs. The success of Christian counseling, whatever the model, can be attributed to the brain-based conditions and processes which make natural learning and growth possible. To begin with, the Christian counselor’s office, if nothing else, should be an environment of relaxed alertness. Clients feel accepted and safe, supported by a counselor who will confront them with new perspectives or truths when necessary, and will stay with them as they attempt new ways of living in the world and with themselves. The state of relaxed alertness, it is to be remembered, is the optimal state of mind for learning.
Clients are also immersed in the process of counseling. In psychodynamic models, this is called transference and is used to facilitate change; in all other models, this is largely ignored but nevertheless contributes to the therapeutic process. As the relationship between the counselor and client approaches and resembles relationships in the “real world,” the more conducive the environment becomes for change and growth. Some of the immersion is accomplished through recalling past events and viewing them from a new perspective, but most of the change is a result of the relationship with the counselor. It is an overstatement to say that it is the relationship that heals, but without immersion in a meaningful relationship with the counselor growth and change are unlikely to occur. This type of immersion is present in all counseling that is more than just problem-solving.
Active processing, the third condition necessary for learning to take place, is the conscious substance of the counseling process. Events and experiences are considered and re-considered as the client learns to interpret and view life differently; ideally, the different view is closer to God’s view of life. New neural connections and schemas are developed as the client is confronted with and accepts new paradigms, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors.
In most cases, Christian counseling also involves a natural learning process. Locale or natural memory is employed rather than rote memory, although the latter is often used to support the former. Heinz Kohut, an influential psychiatrist and the creator of Self Psychology, had a clinical term which described the process of natural learning: transmuting internalization. What this impressive-sounding bit of jargon refers to is the process wherein the client begins to internalize some of the functions which the counselor has been providing. Thus, rather than always having to have a counselor who comforts, explains, or directs, the client begins to take on the functions for themselves. This is natural learning: without conscious intent, the client is learning from the counselor how to think, feel, and behave. (This fact makes the choice of a counselor absolutely determinative for Christian clients!)
Through the process of interacting with the counselor in a state of relaxed alertness, immersion, and active processing of experiences and feelings, the client begins to create new thematic maps. This accounts for the changes in perception of self, others, and God that frequently take place during counseling. These maps, once created, need to be sufficiently supported over time to establish them as the preferred and predominant way of thinking.
Freud once said that insight was the easy work of analysis; the hard part, he argued, was the long period of “working through,” that is, applying the insights to everyday life. In brain-based education or discipleship, working through is transfer of learning: principles and concepts learned in one situation become transferable and can be used in a variety of settings and relationships. The disproportionate amount of time spent in working through is reflective of the amount of time required for transfer of learning to take place in education.
Finally, natural knowledge (as opposed to scholastic or technical knowledge) is what is learned in counseling. Natural knowledge refers to basic motivations which people develop and which guide their choices and behaviors; counseling seeks to work from the inside-out to change the inner person so that the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors naturally follow.
The new schemas that develop in counseling consist of deep and felt meanings: the totality of the person is involved in the process and there is an emotional investment and connection made. When natural knowledge is acquired, clients are no longer motivated externally but internally, even as students are changed from externally driven to internally drawn.
If it is true that Christian counseling works because it rests upon the foundation of brain-based learning, then an important question remains: is any one approach to Christian counseling better than another? It is the position of this paper that there is a preferred way: it is the way that emphasizes the living word of God. Each word is important. The emphasis is first of all on the living word of God: it is not enough that clients are told the truths from the Bible; clients must see the truths lived out in the life of the counselor. Love is caught, not taught, and clients are changed by the written word of God because they see it lived in the Christian counselor. Second, it is the living word of God: it is not ideas or beliefs from other sources or human reason, however reasonable or logical those might seem to be. The Holy Spirit gives life to the truths of God, not the musings of people.
Finally, it is the living word of God, i.e., the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself there. It is not a god who has been created in the image of man or the God of the Bible whittled down by various scholarly evaluations and criticisms. It is Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as He has revealed Himself in His entirety in the Bible and creation.
This way also involves saturating the client, whether in session or not, with Scripture. The infallible word of the God is the material employed by the Holy Spirit to develop new neural networks and schemas in the process of renewing the mind of the believer. The more the client has read and understood the Bible, the more material the Holy Spirit has to use. This will not be accomplished by rote memorization alone, although such memorization is an important step. It will involve the application and meditation of the word of God, first in the life of the counselor – who explains his or her own life in biblical terms and principles – and then in the life of the client as the counselor identifies the Holy Spirit’s work in the client’s life.
In short, 2 Tim 3.16-17 is as true in the counseling session as it is in Christian education and discipleship. The sufficiency of Scripture to prepare and mature the believer, however, is not accomplished by knowledge alone but by experience with a person whose own life is founded upon the word of God.
CONCLUSION
This paper has demonstrated several important issues and facts critical to effective Christian education and discipleship. First, it has argued that the debate over an integration of theology and psychology has been misdirected: the two do not need to be blended but rather relegated to their proper places. The hard science of neurology is a supportive discipline that can offer insight into how God works in human beings to accomplish His will in them. By working in and through the natural processes of the brain, God produces results that can only be described as supernatural. Neurology also demonstrates that sanctification is a process requiring time, not an immediate accomplishment or a mystical event requiring non-verifiable, extra-biblical philosophies for realization. Most importantly, neurological findings have been shown to be in agreement with the teaching of the Bible.
The question of partitions in the human has also been dismissed: rather than being an imagined amalgamation of parts, the human soul has been shown to be a single unity. The human being does not have a soul, but is a soul; the soul has both material and immaterial dimensions, but the immaterial is embedded in and dependent upon the material while the material is dependent upon the immaterial for life. The immaterial soul, in turn, consists of neural pathways and schemas that result in distinguishable functions of the brain which the Bible refers to as the soul, heart, and mind; the soul, heart, and mind account for all of the other immaterial qualities of a person such as reason, compassion, love, and will.
The neurologically-informed model of the human constitution has been applied to Christian education and discipleship, demonstrating a need for drastic changes in the approach of the church to fulfill the Great Commission. Old, ineffective models of education, borrowed without inspection from the secular education industry, have been exposed as based on non-Christian and non-scientific foundations. The brain-based approach required by human neurology has been demonstrated to be exactly what Jesus Christ used in His training of His disciples. A call for the utilization of brain-based learning techniques, therefore, is a call to return to the model provided the church in the New Testament.
Because the issue of Christian education and discipleship is directly connected to the revealed word of God as well as the purposes of God in the lives of His people, it was necessary to demonstrate the biblical nature, viability, and reasonableness of each of the three major thrusts of the paper. It was first imperative to present a Christian psychology and anthropology, drawn from both special and general revelations, that showed that people are monistic in nature. This was important because the Bible consistently portrays and treats people as monistic, not because the current position of the neurosciences points to such unity. This understanding returns the church to a more biblical concern for the totality of human experience and away from an approach which cares primarily – or only – about a person’s immaterial status as saved or unsaved. Doing good to all men is not limited to sharing the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, although it must include that to be genuinely good. The Christian psychology presented here encourages and facilitates a more wholistic love for people; it also provided the foundation for the subsequent discussion of neurology and spirituality. A monistic view of the person also necessitates an approach in Christian education and discipleship that is not limited to a specific dimension of an individual – the mind – but is careful to engage the whole person.
The neurological section sought to explain how the human brain functions and to embed spirituality in its workings. The resulting model of sanctification is of value in understanding what takes place as the Holy Spirit transforms believers through the renewing of their minds, and also demonstrates how and where He does the work. By identifying the battlefield and realizing the nature of the battle, believers are better equipped to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in yielding to Him and in setting apart Jesus Christ as Lord in their lives (Gal 5.16,1 Pet 3.15).
The brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship, in turn, rests upon the model of Christian psychology and neurologically-informed sanctification. It was proven to be consistent with the approach of the New Testament and to grow out of the previously developed model. It was also demonstrated to be the method, practically if not theoretically, which Christ employed with His disciples in preparing them for the work after His death, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Having demonstrated the practical value of the Christian psychology developed in this paper, it is also of interest to reveal the explanatory and heuristic power of the model, too. This will be accomplished in two arenas. First, the model will be applied to the life of Jesus Christ during His earthly existence, including how His brain might have differed from those of others. Second, the model will seek to explain why such a wide range of counseling approaches can be effective. The model also strongly suggests that there is one approach that facilitates Christian growth and maturity more than others.
The Perfect Human Brain
Initially, it might seem strange or wrong to speculate about the neurological experience of the God-Man during His earthly life and ministry. For Christians, however, knowledge of and insight into the nature of God is profitable and edifying; that such study might occur at the level of neurology is certainly uncommon, but it is also a potential source of greater comprehension. To consider how Jesus Christ functioned during His humiliation is to consider how God desires to work in the life of all believers.
Jesus was born of a virgin; more importantly, He was a direct creation of the Holy Spirit and was not a part of Adam’s seed or under his federal headship, i.e., He was not born with personal, inherited, or imputed sin. This fact meant that it was possible for Him to grow, mature, and learn without the distorting and corrupting influences of sin on His brain and mind. Jesus’ perfect spirit had the ability to do what no other human has possessed since Adam’s fall: He could perfectly fellowship with and obey God, could have healthy relationships with others (as far as His part was concerned), and was never internally conflicted or confused. In contrast to Adam, however, Jesus was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of conception in His mother’s womb. By constantly living in submission to the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ spirit joined with God’s Spirit to maintain His sinless condition throughout His life.
In Jesus’ process of maturation, there would have been a system of perfect neural networks and schemas developed and maintained by the Holy Spirit. His life would have been – and was – a manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s work in His brain to produce the fruit of the Spirit and to perfectly reflect the image of God in a human person. All of Jesus’ instincts, desires, hopes, dreams, feelings, and behaviors were sinlessly created in His perfectly organized brain, heart, and mind through the initiating and superintending work of the Holy Spirit. Every thought was truly and absolutely taken captive to obedience (2 Cor 10.5). When Jesus’ senses were stimulated by an external source, the Holy Spirit superintended the response of His brain and produced the exact result in Him that would have been effected in the Father. Regardless of the nature of the stimulus, the Holy Spirit would have been free to act because Jesus’ spirit was in submission to the Holy Spirit. Whatever internal stimulus might occur, the same would be true: the Holy Spirit would intervene and create a perfect neural network or schema in Jesus. Jesus’ own spirit might initiate a desire or thought, but it would immediately be subjected to the oversight of the Holy Spirit. Many times, of course, the source of the internal stimulus was the Holy Spirit: at those times, Jesus’ own spirit would willingly submit to the Holy Spirit’s will.
This understanding clarifies a peculiar statement Jesus made during His earthly ministry. He said to His disciples, when explaining the parable of the fig tree, that He did not know the time of His second coming but that only the Father knew (Mt 26.36). If, as has been argued here, Jesus’ own spirit was voluntarily submitting to what the Holy Spirit revealed to Him, then there is no tension between His limited knowledge, on the one hand, and His divinity, on the other. In His own omniscient spirit, which was certainly divine, Jesus knew the time even as the Father knew the time. But He did not rely or draw upon His own spirit but freely accepted the limitations of being a human submitting to the Holy Spirit.
It is helpful to compare Jesus’ hypothesized mental life with those of Adam and Saul/Paul. Like Jesus, Adam started out without sin. He was free to learn and grow in the Garden of Eden without the damaging and disfiguring influence of either internal or external sin; furthermore, he, too, had a relationship with God that was unencumbered by sin and was able to see Him clearly for who He is.
Unlike Jesus, Adam was not indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit, but his own spirit was not fettered by the power of sin. Tragically, Adam’s own spirit was not able to resist the allure and power of sin. When, through disobedience, Adam allowed sin to enter into the created order, he also opened his own spirit and soul to the devastating effects of sin. Having chosen in that moment to live autonomously instead of in willing submission to God, Adam’s brain suddenly began to function differently. Earlier, godly neural networks and schemas remained, but emerging alongside them were new, mistaken, wrong, sinful, selfish, and corrupted networks and schemas. Whereas everything before had been in perfect harmony, both internally and externally, things now began to be conflicted and contradictory. Worst of all, his relationship with God was abruptly interrupted and fellowship was sorely strained and distant compared to how it was prior to the Fall.
The mental organization and experience of Saul of Tarsus presents a different contrast, one with which all Christians should be able to identify. Prior to his conversion, Saul was a good man: he was a devout and zealous Jew, committed to God and endeavoring to live in obedience to Him. But in contrast to Jesus and Adam, Saul did not begin life free of sin: being an offspring of Adam’s fallen race, he was crippled by the effects and influences of personal, imputed, and inherited sin from the moment of conception. There was never a time in Saul’s life when sin did not negatively affect his perception, development, and maturation. Saul’s spirit was never able to react to external stimuli as God had originally intended humans to respond, and his spirit also was bent to initiate internal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that were not consistent with God’s design. Due to the presence of sin, Saul was always in conflict: with others, with himself, and even with God. Twisted by sin, his spirit created neural schemas of God, people, and himself that were distortions of reality; crippled by sin, his spirit was unable to the good that he read and understood from the Old Testament.
At the moment of his salvation, when Saul became Paul, the future apostle’s brain became host to the indwelling Spirit of God. Whereas his own human spirit had been able to produce a form of life, the Holy Spirit created real life – eternal life – in Saul and he was literally born again within. The Holy Spirit began making new connections and ignoring old schemas that sin had created. As long as Paul’s spirit rested in and depended upon the Holy Spirit within him, new neural schemas were developed and old schemas avoided. Because Paul’s brain was ravaged by sin, it was not possible for the Holy Spirit to create flawless, perfect neural connections and schemas. This meant that, even when in submission to the Holy Spirit, Paul would still fall short of God’s perfect design for human living – grace was required for new living, even as it had been for new life.
Even so, qualitative changes began to emerge in Paul: his view of things began to change, slowly at first but then like an avalanche gaining momentum. Facts and data about God, people, and himself began to be organized in new ways, and new information on all three began to be added to his brain. Literally, Paul was being transformed by the renewing of his mind and was becoming able to discern what God’s moral will was (Rom 12.2). Since the handicap of sin would never be eliminated from his sinful, physical brain, it would become necessary for him to receive a new, spiritual body at the resurrection . The psuchikos would yield to the pneumatikos, and Paul’s born-again, purified spirit would be able to assimilate and accommodate all the truth of God. His new body and brain would become as Adam’s was intended to become: eternally committed and submitted to God.
Paul’s experience is the experience of every believer: the old, corrupting influences of the flesh remain and will never be overcome in this lifetime. By the grace and power of God, however, every believer has the opportunity to yield to the Holy Spirit and experience a transforming of the mind, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and an abiding in True Vine. Regardless of the model or approach employed, Christian education and discipleship can only be successful when the person is in possession of the life which the Holy Spirit brings at the moment of salvation and is in full submission to the work of the Holy Spirit in his or her life. When these two conditions are met, then the brain-based approach to Christian education and discipleship presented here – but first described in the Bible – is the most effective manner in which to accomplish the Great Commission and live out the Great Commandment.
Brain-Based Learning and Christian Counseling
The model of Christian psychology has application for Christian counseling. Christian counseling, like is secular counterpart, is fractured into numerous schools and approaches, there being no agreed-upon “right” theory or methodology. All, however, seem to work: people get better and credit their counselor – or, for Christians, credit God working through their counselor – for the improvement in their lives.
The neurologically-embedded model presented here helps explain this puzzling state of affairs. The success of Christian counseling, whatever the model, can be attributed to the brain-based conditions and processes which make natural learning and growth possible. To begin with, the Christian counselor’s office, if nothing else, should be an environment of relaxed alertness. Clients feel accepted and safe, supported by a counselor who will confront them with new perspectives or truths when necessary, and will stay with them as they attempt new ways of living in the world and with themselves. The state of relaxed alertness, it is to be remembered, is the optimal state of mind for learning.
Clients are also immersed in the process of counseling. In psychodynamic models, this is called transference and is used to facilitate change; in all other models, this is largely ignored but nevertheless contributes to the therapeutic process. As the relationship between the counselor and client approaches and resembles relationships in the “real world,” the more conducive the environment becomes for change and growth. Some of the immersion is accomplished through recalling past events and viewing them from a new perspective, but most of the change is a result of the relationship with the counselor. It is an overstatement to say that it is the relationship that heals, but without immersion in a meaningful relationship with the counselor growth and change are unlikely to occur. This type of immersion is present in all counseling that is more than just problem-solving.
Active processing, the third condition necessary for learning to take place, is the conscious substance of the counseling process. Events and experiences are considered and re-considered as the client learns to interpret and view life differently; ideally, the different view is closer to God’s view of life. New neural connections and schemas are developed as the client is confronted with and accepts new paradigms, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors.
In most cases, Christian counseling also involves a natural learning process. Locale or natural memory is employed rather than rote memory, although the latter is often used to support the former. Heinz Kohut, an influential psychiatrist and the creator of Self Psychology, had a clinical term which described the process of natural learning: transmuting internalization. What this impressive-sounding bit of jargon refers to is the process wherein the client begins to internalize some of the functions which the counselor has been providing. Thus, rather than always having to have a counselor who comforts, explains, or directs, the client begins to take on the functions for themselves. This is natural learning: without conscious intent, the client is learning from the counselor how to think, feel, and behave. (This fact makes the choice of a counselor absolutely determinative for Christian clients!)
Through the process of interacting with the counselor in a state of relaxed alertness, immersion, and active processing of experiences and feelings, the client begins to create new thematic maps. This accounts for the changes in perception of self, others, and God that frequently take place during counseling. These maps, once created, need to be sufficiently supported over time to establish them as the preferred and predominant way of thinking.
Freud once said that insight was the easy work of analysis; the hard part, he argued, was the long period of “working through,” that is, applying the insights to everyday life. In brain-based education or discipleship, working through is transfer of learning: principles and concepts learned in one situation become transferable and can be used in a variety of settings and relationships. The disproportionate amount of time spent in working through is reflective of the amount of time required for transfer of learning to take place in education.
Finally, natural knowledge (as opposed to scholastic or technical knowledge) is what is learned in counseling. Natural knowledge refers to basic motivations which people develop and which guide their choices and behaviors; counseling seeks to work from the inside-out to change the inner person so that the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors naturally follow.
The new schemas that develop in counseling consist of deep and felt meanings: the totality of the person is involved in the process and there is an emotional investment and connection made. When natural knowledge is acquired, clients are no longer motivated externally but internally, even as students are changed from externally driven to internally drawn.
If it is true that Christian counseling works because it rests upon the foundation of brain-based learning, then an important question remains: is any one approach to Christian counseling better than another? It is the position of this paper that there is a preferred way: it is the way that emphasizes the living word of God. Each word is important. The emphasis is first of all on the living word of God: it is not enough that clients are told the truths from the Bible; clients must see the truths lived out in the life of the counselor. Love is caught, not taught, and clients are changed by the written word of God because they see it lived in the Christian counselor. Second, it is the living word of God: it is not ideas or beliefs from other sources or human reason, however reasonable or logical those might seem to be. The Holy Spirit gives life to the truths of God, not the musings of people.
Finally, it is the living word of God, i.e., the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself there. It is not a god who has been created in the image of man or the God of the Bible whittled down by various scholarly evaluations and criticisms. It is Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as He has revealed Himself in His entirety in the Bible and creation.
This way also involves saturating the client, whether in session or not, with Scripture. The infallible word of the God is the material employed by the Holy Spirit to develop new neural networks and schemas in the process of renewing the mind of the believer. The more the client has read and understood the Bible, the more material the Holy Spirit has to use. This will not be accomplished by rote memorization alone, although such memorization is an important step. It will involve the application and meditation of the word of God, first in the life of the counselor – who explains his or her own life in biblical terms and principles – and then in the life of the client as the counselor identifies the Holy Spirit’s work in the client’s life.
In short, 2 Tim 3.16-17 is as true in the counseling session as it is in Christian education and discipleship. The sufficiency of Scripture to prepare and mature the believer, however, is not accomplished by knowledge alone but by experience with a person whose own life is founded upon the word of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)