Introduction
Much has been written over the past several decades on the subject of integration of faith and learning.1 I hesitate, then, to offer up another and more feeble attempt to address this profound idea. A survey of the current corpus of the faith-learning integration literature will yield a plethora of definitions, explanations, descriptions, applications and, above all, exhortations to both the theory and practice of integration. What I fear is lacking, however, in our ongoing consideration of this subject is the acknowledgement and understanding of the existence of some limitations on faith and learning integration. An awareness of these very real and intended limitations will, I believe, prompt us to engage in the endeavor with humility born of human finitude and fallenness, and in so doing, persevere in our continuing efforts to attain the goal of faith and learning integration.
That goal, in its most essential expression, is to achieve human completeness – the ανθρωπος τελιος. Dietrich Bonhoeffer aptly described this goal when he wrote from his Nazi prison cell: “the Christian and the man of liberal education . . . cannot split up his life or dismember it, and the common denominator must be sought in a personal and integrated attitude to life. The man who allows himself to be torn into fragments by events and by questions has not passed the test for the present and the future.” Bonhoeffer Letters 200). Indeed, Bonhoeffer was echoing in his words the wisdom of Solomon who admonished his children to the integrated life. “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.” (Proverbs 11:3 NIV). Integration is thus the road to the future as well as the praxis for fully engaging the present experience of what it means to be human.
While this noble goal is a certain part of our divinely purposed future, there currently exists impairments that impose limitations on our attainment of human completeness in the here and now. The purpose of this essay is to provoke a consideration of the origin, extent and implications of these limitations on faith and learning integration. As to their origin, I will suggest that the limitations are both inherent in human nature – matters of creation – and acquired in human experience – matters of the fall. As to their extent, I will contend that the limitations broadly impair perception, understanding and implementation of knowledge. And finally, I will argue that the implications of these limitations should lead all who seek to integrate faith and learning to acknowledge that, though the goal of human completeness cannot be fully attained in present experience, we must continue our journey along this road understanding that integration is a mutually interdependent, dynamic process within the human community. In short, we need one another to progress along the path. A solitary traveler is doomed to destruction.
Origin of the Limitations
To be human is to be limited. Though throughout the history of humankind, men and women have exerted great energies to overcome the limitations that naturally adhere to our species, and though some of those attempts have met with measures of success, as in the arenas of medicine, communication and transportation, to name only some of the obvious ones – humans are still confronted with the undeniable reality that we are limited not only in time and space, but also in knowledge and understanding. These limitations came into existence at our origin and then have been exacerbated by human experience.
At the point of origin, the human is limited by the delineation of the space occupied by the person and the duration of time one will survive. In addition to these externally apparent limitations, the human, i.e. the creature, is limited internally. The human is capable of acquiring only a finite measure of knowledge. Although Aristotle asserted that in knowing “the soul is in a certain manner all existing things” (emphasis added),2 humanity can not escape its limitations by an individualistic knowing as Aristotle’s point itself admits.
Professor Richard Hughes emphasizes the importance of the learner’s recognition of the existence of such limitations upon the individual. “My first objective in every class I teach is to help my students develop an appreciation for human finitude, for limits, for the ambiguity of the human situation – even for the inevitability of death . . . . We begin with the one conviction that Christian faith and serious academic exploration share in common: an affirmation of our limitations as human beings.” (Hughes 107). These human limitations are thus limitations are all human endeavors, and as such they impose limitations upon the process of integration of faith and learning. But simply acknowledging the limitedness of the human due to nature as a created being is an insufficient explanation of the origin of the limitations. One cannot more completely understand their origin without a consideration what effect man’s fall from his original state of creation had on human capabilities to know.
Just whether and to what extent the fall had an affect upon our human ability to know and understand truth has been an issue of debate through the ages. Aquinas taught that the fall did not affect man as a whole but only in part; specifically, the will was fallen or corrupted but the intellect was not affected. (Schaeffer 52). In his article, “The Splendor of Knowledge,” John Young expounds the Thomist perspective.
St. Thomas Aquinas points out that the perfection of each created thing is incomplete and that knowing things have a remedy for this incompleteness because “there is found another mode of perfection in created things, according as the perfection which is proper to one thing is found in another thing; and this is the perfection of a knower inasmuch as it is a knower.” (De Veritate, q. 2, a. 2). This explains man’s deep urge to know, especially to know the noblest things. He is one individual, limited by space and time. However, through knowledge he transcends the confines of his human nature and becomes many things. And he burst the limits of space and time by knowing things existing outside the small area in which his body subsists, and in times other than the present. We know only imperfectly. But to the extent that we know, we have become the known. The potentiality to know has become actual knowledge, and this knowledge is the reality, so far as it is known.6 (Young 18-19)
Without attempting to resolve this debate, we may assert that, at least, the limitations inherent in humanness were accentuated and exacerbated by man’s willful assertion in disobedience to the divine design. “Man’s wisdom is limited both because he is finite and because he is fallen.” (Curtis 221). Humans were created as meaning-seeking and meaning-producing creatures, but these capacities are limited and warped by both man’s finite and fallen condition. (Clark & Gaede 75). While God’s absolute truth is available to us, through his revelation and our reason, our finitude limits, contextualizes and diversifies our understandings of it; our fallenness leads us to resist, distort and misuse the truth in self-serving ways. (Clark & Gaede 79).
Extent of the Limitations
Having acknowledged that limitations are part and parcel of being human, the one who seeks to integrate faith and learning must also consider the extent to which these limitations impair the pursuit toward the attainment of integration’s goal. An effort to set forth an analysis of this scope could range from the overly simplistic to the extremely complex. While the former would likely fail to confront the varied dimensions of the limits, the latter most certainly would lead to theoretical speculations of diminished practical value in providing guidance along the integration journey. Yet, a careful consideration of just how far these limitations extend must, at a minimum, address the essential aspects of perception, understanding and implementation of knowledge.
First, there is the limitation of perception. To be human means, in part, to have the ability to perceive what exists outside of one’s self. Such abilities ordinarily include “seeing” and “hearing,” as well as the other senses, but perception is not exercised solely by the senses. The physical senses, though, serve to illustrate the limitation of perception. Humans, even those without extraordinary disabilities, still have limited ranges of both sight and hearing, and thus the ability to perceive fully is always impaired. With respect to the spiritual dimension of sight, the Apostle Paul wrote, “For now we see in a mirror dimly . . .” (I Corinthians 13:12). Both physically and spiritually the human’s ability to see is faulty. “Our vision is flawed, imperfect, limited, imprecise, skewed.” (Reichenbach 23). These deficiencies have analogies to all the means of perception, whether sensual or intuitive. Humans are possessed of dim eyes restricted by blinders, dense ears stopped-up with wax, callous fingers seared by heat, dull tongues coated with phlegm and blocked noses clogged with congestion. Applying the reality of limited perception to the task of integration within the academic context, Reichenbach concludes, “Professing must be done from humility brought on by the recognition of our extreme finitude . . . . Socrates was correct: to recognize one’s limits is the beginning of wisdom.” (Reichenbach 23)
Second, there is the limitation of human understanding. This aspect of limitation both flows from limited perception and accentuates the restraints upon the achievement of human completeness in the present experience. The writer of Ecclesiastes describes the effect of an impaired ability to understand that is characteristic of all humans regardless of intellectual capabilities. “I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking [to understand], he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out. (Ecclesiastes 8:17 ESV). Individual man is limited in his ability to process the information that his limited perception has acquired from outside himself. Levels of cognitive ability vary from one individual to another as a result of both inherent aptitude and acquired skills that depend upon opportunities for their development. Yet, in every case human understanding of any particular field of knowledge remains incomplete. No one individual can perceive it all. No one individual can understand it all, even when the object of that individual’s perception and subsequent efforts at understanding is very narrowly defined. Moreover, while God is the source of all truth, and this truth is absolute, our understanding of that truth is relative, incomplete, selective and distorted by our human condition. (Clark & Gaede 76).
Thus far in the explanation of the extent of human limitations, one might be left with a feeling of near hopelessness arising from the recognition that human perception of knowledge is obscured and human understanding of knowledge is incomplete and often distorted. Yet, the one who endeavors to integrate faith and learning “must agree with Socrates that it is essential that we [continue to] search for the things we do not know with the expectation that there is something to know.” (Reichenbach 18) (emphasis in the original). To the expectation that there is something to know, however, must be added an expectation that knowledge can be perceived and understood, albeit in an admittedly limited measure in the here and now. So, one engaging in the process of integration must, by necessity, continue to ask and think as he interacts with others along the journey toward the goal of human completeness.
In this integration endeavor, we must recognize at least one more aspect of the extent of the limitations on the achievement of its objective. That is the limitation of implementation. Limited perception yields some information, and limited understanding gives rise to some insight. Left at this stage, knowledge so acquired has a strong tendency within the human to produce personal pride. As the Apostle Paul said, “Knowledge puffs up.” (I Corinthians 8:1). In order to avoid this pitfall, the one who seeks to integrate faith and learning should give attention to Bonventure in his work On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology.7 Knowledge perceived and understood should lead one to love God and others, and thus to act. Zachary Hayes articulates this point.
For Bonaventure, the important issue, is, above all, knowledge integrated into the spiritual journey toward love; love of God and love of one’s fellow human beings. It is clear that Bonaventure has a high regard for the intellectual life, but he never envisioned knowledge independently of the only goal that the human person finally has: loving union with God. (Hayes 9).
Bonaventure, as well as the one engaged in the process of integration, follows upon Paul’s prior point that, though knowledge in and of itself puffs up, knowledge that leads to love “builds up” (I Corinthians 8:1b). Edification of others, though, is impaired by an inability to act completely. Man is confronted with limits in the implementation of knowledge by again both his finitude and fallenness.
The vital connection between the implementation of knowledge and our experience of love for God and others is further expressed by Gorman in her recent article on transformational learning. “Since God is truth the experiencing of truth (all truth) should lead us to God and knowing God. Truth, therefore is to be transformational. For the believer, the goal of all things is to recognize and live in the reality of that truth as God designed and declared it. The “telos” (purpose/maturity) is to fully carry out that for which we are designed. We teach to enable others to believe God.” (Gorman 26). But, the limitation on implementation impairs the full transformative impact of knowledge in present human experience. Faith and learning integration is an essential aspect of education, and true education is at its soul a transformative experience, as Gorman expounds. Indeed, transformation of the learner indicates the progress of the educational process. While a measure of progress along this path can be made, humans are limited in their ability to act fully upon what they have perceived and come to understand through education.
While the extent of these limitations must be admitted as present impairments to integration, the one who seeks still to integrate faith and learning can yet continue this endeavor with expectation of progress toward the goal as he acknowledges and depends upon the aid of others. Truth does indeed exist in an absolute form. Though a limited, individual human cannot come to know – that is perceive, understand and act upon – that truth absolutely, a single human can know certain aspects of truth with certitude. Individual man, however, cannot know the whole of truth with certainty. Each individual possesses past experiences, perceives from present perspectives and projects future expectations. All of these dimensions of individuality contribute to the shaping of that person’s presuppositions and biases. As such, each individual is uniquely situated for and particularly limited in the process of integration. Consequently, there is, of necessity, a need for others with their varying experiences, perspectives, expectations and interests to assist along the journey toward a more holistic integration of faith and learning and thus, toward more complete humanness.
Implications of the Limitations
Having now suggested both the origin and extent of the present limitations on the process of faith and learning integration, there follows implications that should persuade all who profess to engage in this noble enterprise of at least three conclusions. First, the goal of attaining human completeness cannot be fully experienced either individually or even communally in the here and now. Human finitude will remain. Time and space restrictions will persist in spite of increases in the speed of both transportation of people and transfer of information. Humans will remain capable of only being in one place at any given time. Human fallenness will continue at least until the ultimate restoration of the redeemed creation. While this present earth remains, the fallenness of creation will continue to impair man’s progress toward maturity, toward completeness. Ultimate human completeness awaits a future eschatological event – “when he appears, we (note John’s use of the plural) shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (I John 3:2b). This is the telos to which human creatures are designed. So those who engage in integration must look ahead, but this does not mean that we are then to sit idly by and merely await a fate.
Rather, the second conclusion implied by the limitations on integration is that the present process is dynamic and developing. Integration understood within the context of these limitations is, as alluded to above, analogous to efforts of Socrates posing queries to his students in Athens. Reichenbach observes: “Socrates’ method never yields certainty, for every belief advanced is subject to scrutiny, the outcome of which remains tentative even should it survive Socratic questioning. The tentativeness comes form the recognition that knowledge is not indubitable certainty. At the same them, however, neither are we left with agnosticism, which places all claims on equal footing.” (Reichenbach 19). So it is with the developing process of integration and the engagement of the mind. “The Christian mind must be dynamic, flexible and able to expand and develop as we clarify and correct our knowledge of truth.” (Gangel 105, quoting Carlson). Truth remains constant and absolute, yet our human perception and understanding of and action upon aspects of truth will continue to develop.
A serious consideration of how this development most effectively occurs brings us to the final and most formidable implication arising from the existence of these limitations upon faith and learning integration. For in order to experience ongoing development toward the goal of human completeness, the one seeking to integrate needs to engage in an interactive process within the human community. It cannot be done alone solely with the thoughts arising within an individual mind. Rather, thoughts and ideas, perceptions and understandings, words and actions must be subjected to the examination of others through listening to and questioning of other fellow travelers on the path. For the teacher who “professes” this will mean a recognition that “though in my profession I believe that I am correct and indeed am willing to make the relevant commitments based on that belief – and in the case of religious beliefs, the risk of faith – yet I am willing to have others explore the truth-claim for themselves.” (Reichenbach 20). For students – and in a real way we are all students – this will mean the acknowledgement of the continuing need for “a teacher as a catalyst and a guide, one who has struggled and is struggling with similar questions and knows some of the pertinent materials and procedures.” (Holmes).
This implication calls for those who seek to integrate to participate in what has been called a “faith and learning community.” (Williams 82). According to Clifford Williams, such a community is characterized by a lively interest in learning where “teachers express their enthusiasm for thinking and learning, partly to engender student interest but mainly because it is one of their life passions.” (Williams 83). This community fosters an ethos that seeks to avoid a split (against which Bonhoeffer had warned) between faith, on the one hand, and learning, on the other. All of its community intellectual exploration is part of a larger commitment to seek and gain meaning by contemplating varying responses to the persistent questions of life. Finally, Williams envisions this community of learners being lead by teachers who consider themselves learners devoted to a life-long process and who promote a cooperative rather than competitive spirit among all within the community. (Williams 83). The “faith and learning” community, however, must not be limited to only those of “like minds”, but instead should and must remain an un-walled, un-gated campus always inviting others to join in the journey.
Understanding these implications of the limitations on integration opens us beyond the realm of the “like-minded” to a broader community of learning informed by a variety of perspectives. For example, as Williams further suggests, we may learn from the post-modernist view an appropriate distrust in human abilities to discover truth about reality. (Williams 79). This should lead the one seeking to integrate faith and learning to be cautious about what is declared to be absolute truth. Furthermore, we may gain insight from the post-modernist’s valuing of diversity. (Williams 80). In our efforts toward integration, we need to appreciate and listen to varying perspectives arising out of the diversity of cultural traditions and contexts. (Williams 80). Thus, not only can integration never be an individualistic endeavor, neither should it be a parochial one.
In short, we need one another. We need to listen and pose questions to each other. Faith and learning integration calls for enrichment from “‘other fields’ to both provide insight and to gain insight from the academic disciplines as mutual searches for God’s revealed truth.” (Estep 60). This conclusion is likewise supported by the notion of the “sociology of knowledge” as articulated by Clark & Gaede in their essay, “Knowing Together: Reflections on a Holistic Sociology of Knowledge” where they state:
[T]he recognition of our limited perspectives and understanding points to the need for a more communal, multi-perspectival effort to apprehend truth. By listening to and testing the views of those with different experiences and interests (including the oppressed and marginal), we are more likely to discover errors and omissions in our viewpoint. Thus by reaching beyond our contextual perspectives and their limits, we may better approach the truth which transcends relativism. (Clark & Gaede 83)
Thus the limitations on faith and learning integration, i.e. our human limitations, when recognized and acted upon, will draw us together into a community of believing learners striving with the aid of one another toward our common goal. Together we will pose to one another the questions and listen to the responses that will enable integration to develop as we ask, think and act together seeking knowledge of truth.
Conclusion
The fundamental integration inquiry is: how does a particular academic discipline – what one is seeking to study and learn about – present responses to the persistent questions of life? What is the nature of reality? What is good? What does it mean to live a good life? How does one become a really good person? What is truth? What is beauty? What is justice? In seeking to integrate faith and learning as we listen to and reflect upon the responses to these questions from our fellow travelers, we are thereby informed by a broadening spectrum of disciplines, experiences, insights and interests. Bonhoeffer once again provides instructive insight on the interdependence of all those who seek truth.
As we thus listen to and strive to understand the ideas of others in response to integration’s inquiry we will begin and continue to make progress along the path of integration of faith and learning. Arthur Holmes described this experience as “an opportunity to become whole and to see life whole rather than provincially fragmented I one way or another.” (Holmes 36). In our efforts toward achieving the goal of integration – the ανθρωπος τελιος − we must acknowledge that though we are limited in our ability to attain this goal, it is a worthy object of our efforts toward which we may labor as we seek together to think and live wholly and completely in the here and now.
