by

Willard D. Pendleton

A series of lectures on New Church education delivered to the Educational Council August 1964.

CONTENTS

I. What Is Man?

First Objective: A knowledge of the Word.

Second Objective: The formation of a conscience in the understanding.

Third Objective: A respect for law and order.

II. The Moral Man.

Fourth Objective: Moral Integrity.

III. The Social Man.

Fifth Objective: A sense of social responsibility.

IV. The Spiritual Man.

Sixth Objective: An affection for spiritual truth.

V. The Curriculum.

Seventh Objective: The love of use.

 I. WHAT IS MAN?

Several years ago I published a small work entitled, "Foundations of New Church Education." Obviously, this work was intended to acquaint the reader with those basic doctrines of the New Church upon which the whole concept of New Church education rests. These doctrines are:

The Doctrine of the Divine Human
The Doctrine of Knowledges
The Doctrine of the Will
The Doctrine of Remains
The Doctrine of Truth
The Doctrine of Use

Taken together, these doctrines constitute the primary sources of our unique educational philosophy. I say it is unique because it involves new concepts of God, of good, of truth, of the meaning and purpose of life, and of man. Were this not so there would be no reason for New Church education, and none of us would be devoting our lives to this work at this day. It is because we see in these concepts a new source of educational ideals and values that we are committed to the work in hand.

In this series of lectures we are primarily concerned with the last mentioned concept; namely, man. For how can we talk about educational objectives and values unless we first talk about man. Our first question, therefore, is, What is man? In asking this question we do but follow the lead of the Psalmist who, some three thousand years ago asked, "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?" (Psalm 8:4) Note that this question involves both an assumption and an inference. The assumption is that man is created by God, and the inference is that there is something about man that sets him apart from all other living forms.

Our second question, therefore, is, What is it that sets man apart from the animal? In other words, what in essence is man? To all external appearances, man does not differ greatly from the anthropoids. What is more, the animal experiences every sensation which comes to consciousness by way of the five senses; it hears, it sees, it smells, it tastes, and it responds to every physical stimuli upon which sensation is dependent. Yet there is something lacking--something which in essence is man that the animal does not possess. This something is identified in the Writings with the intellectual faculty; that is, with the ability to think and to reason. But man is not man merely because he can think and reason, but because by virtue of this ability he can perceive what is true, and from truth perceive what is good. Unlike man, therefore, the animal is utterly incapable of forming any idea of good or of evil, or of right or of wrong. Hence it is also incapable of reflecting upon the effect of its actions upon others or of gaining any perspective of self. In all that it does, the animal is a creature of instinct; that is, a creature that is governed entirely by the affections and appetites that are proper to its life. The animal, therefore, is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral; neither is it capable of forming for itself a sense of values by which it may be governed in its relation to others.

There is, then, an essential difference between man and animals. In this difference the essential human consists. Thus it is that unless this difference is seen and understood we have no basis for understanding man. For man is not, as many at this day seem to believe, some kind of superior animal, but a being endowed with the capacity to rise above the natural instincts into which he is born. As the Writings teach, all men are born natural; that is, they are born into natural instincts of every kind (AE 449a). In other words, man is not man at birth, but only a potential man; that is, a being who is capable of becoming man. The reason for this is that the mind of man, as distinguished from that of the animal, is a dual creation in that it consists of the will and the understanding. Whereas at birth the sensual degree of the will is opened, the understanding is not yet formed. That is what is meant in the Genesis account of creation, where it is said that "darkness was upon the faces of the deep" (Genesis 1:2). Man is born into complete ignorance. He has no knowledge of anything; but with the dawn of consciousness a miracle takes place, for "the Spirit of God moved upon the faces of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Genesis 1:2, 3). By "the faces of the waters" is signified knowledges, and by the Spirit of God, the influx of life.

What is treated of here is mans first mental awareness, which is similar to, yet different from, the mental perception of the beast. The difference is that within the childs perception of sensual objects there is an affection that the animal does not possess; that is, the affection of understanding. Were this not so man would never become man, for as the Writings observe, no one could ever become rational unless there were some delight or effection which aspired thereto (AC 1895). While in the first year of the childs life this affection is not observable, in the second year it is manifested in his ability to associate meaning with words. The ability to communicate by means of words is a sign of mans humanity; that is, of a being who is motivated by a delight in learning. Were it not for this delight, man would not be educable, but would be as the beast of the field. Hence it is that in speaking of man as a rational being, the Writings state: "[Men] have this ability, because rationality is ... [humanity] itself, for by it man is man, and is distinguished from beasts" (Five Mem. I).

To understand rationality, reflect for the moment upon what is involved in the question, Why? The animal cannot ask this question; neither does he have any desire to know. Because it lacks this affection or interest, it cannot be educated. We must distinguish here, however, between training and education. To a greater or less degree the animal can be trained; that is, it can be conditioned to respond to certain commands. This also is true of the child. But the difference is that as the mind of the child develops it can be led to perceive the reason why the command is given, but the animal cannot; the reason for this is that the animal has no power of abstraction. It lacks the ability to reflect upon the meaning of that which it experiences. The function of education, therefore, is to introduce the child into progressively meaningful concepts; that is, into those knowledges which open the way to a rational understanding of what is true and good. Hence the teaching of the Writings that "all instruction is simply an opening of the way; and as the way is opened ... there ... flow in ... rational things ... [and into these spiritual and celestial things]" (AC 1495). By spiritual and celestial things are meant truths and goods. There is no other way. If man is to become man he must be instructed. Hence the further teaching of the Writings that "it is by means of knowledges that man becomes man" (AC 1616).

This statement from the Writings is basic to our whole concept of what is involved in the educational process. To understand education we must come to see that it is a humanizing process. In other words, it is the means whereby man puts on, or assumes, the human. It is only the potential man who exists at birth; the real man has yet to emerge. For at birth man possesses a soul and a body, but the mind is as yet "without form, and void; and darkness ... [is] upon the faces of the deep" (Genesis 1:2). But as knowledges are acquired, the mind begins to take form. So it is that we speak of education as a formative process; that is, as the process whereby man puts on the human form. Whether we say the human form or the human mind, it is the same; for man is not man because he is endowed with a human figure, but because he possesses a mind which is capable of being instructed in those knowledges in which, as in mirrors, truths may be seen (AC 5202). If, then, we ask, What is man, our answer is that he is a living form who is endowed by his Creator with the ability to see what is true, and because he can see what is true he may, if he will, do what is good.

Can it not rightly be said, therefore, that "education aims at the good man, the good citizen, and the useful man?" This statement is not original with us. It is quoted from the report of a committee of prominent educators who were assigned by Harvard University to consider the role of general education in a free society (General Education in a Free Society, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1945, p. 74). We refer it to your attention because of the emphasis that it places upon what is good. Here is ample evidence that thinking men and women everywhere clearly recognize that the purpose of knowledge is that it may serve as a means whereby man may do what is useful and good. In speaking of good, however, we immediately become involved in a question of value. What is of value to one man may be regarded as of no value by another. It is here that educational differences arise. A curriculum designed by a convinced utilitarian would have a very different emphasis than one designed by a proponent of the liberal arts. In this, as in everything else in life, the ultimate outcome is determined by that which we value. If, above all other things, a man values his freedom, he will die in defense of his freedom rather than live as a slave. If, above all other things, man values wealth, he will barter his integrity to achieve gain. In other words, every man values that which he loves. There are no exceptions to this.

As educators, therefore, that is, as parents and teachers, our first responsibility is to determine what is of value. In other wards, we must ask ourselves what it is that we want for our children. To fail to do this is to leave the child without any basic sense of values; that is, without any concept of good or of evil, of right or of wrong. For "what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?" (Matthew 7:9, 10) We have here an obligation which cannot be dismissed. Apart from his parents, the greatest influence in the life of any child is, or should be, his teachers. Unless we represent something of genuine value in the life of the child we are not educators, but merely instructors; that is, sources of information who have nothing to offer except what is taught in the texts.

We concur, then, with those who insist that education is concerned with the whole child, not merely with one aspect of his personality. We are as much concerned with the education of the will as we are with the instruction of the understanding. In speaking in this way we are immediately drawn into a theological controversy, for there are those who hold that we cannot properly speak of the education of the will. There is a sense in which this is true, in that all instruction is addressed to the understanding. But the purpose of instruction is not merely that man may acquire knowledge, for "what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) By the soul here is meant the will of man, for every man is what he loves, not what he knows. Unless by way of instruction, therefore, the way is opened whereby man may come into the perception and acknowledgment of what is good, he is not, in the true sense of the word, an educated man. Hence we speak of the education of the will. In this, as in all things, however, we must bear in mind that the knowledge of a thing must precede the perception of it (AC 5649, 1802).

We are reminded here of a notable passage in the Writings which states that there are two things which prevent a man from becoming celestial. By celestial here, as elsewhere, the Writings refer to what is good. These two things are the empty or worthless memory-knowledges which man acquires and the pleasures from cupidities which he favors (AC 1542). By empty memory-knowledges are meant those things which a man learns and in which he delights, that are not ordered by, or directed to, some use; for all illustration is from use, and where this illustration is lacking, the knowledge a man possesses is devoid of good. By the pleasures from cupidities is meant all those things in which a man delights that are not conducive to use. Thus it is that when we speak of the education of the will what we have in mind is the formation of a new will in the understanding; that is, the will to do what is good for the sake of a use. This is the ultimate goal of New Church education.

Man is not born into the love of use; he is born into the love of self. Thus it is that in all that he does, the child is motivated by self. As already considered, however, because man is capable of being instructed in truths, he is able to see and acknowledge what is true and from truth to do what is good. As parents and teachers, therefore, our first responsibility is to introduce the child into knowledge of Him who is the source of all truth. The first objective of New Church education, therefore, is to introduce the child into a true idea of God. But as this is not possible apart from the Word, it may be said that the first objective of New Church education is to introduce the child into the knowledge of the Word. Here, and nowhere else, may the Lord be seen. Hence the familiar teaching in the Writings, where in treating of the instruction of the external man, it is said that "the knowledges must be from the Word" (AC 1461). What is meant here is that if man is to be led to perceive what is true he must be instructed in the Word.

That is the primary reason we have established New Church schools. Because we believe that it is essential that our children acquire a knowledge of the Lord in the Word. In this, New Church education differs from every other educational system in that by the Word we have reference not only to the Old and New Testaments, but to the Word as it is now revealed in its spiritual sense. But as this subject is fully considered in chapters two, three and four of my work, "The Foundations of New Church Education," we will not consider it here. It is sufficient to say that the true purpose of instruction is to enable the mind to see what is true, and that the perception of truth is not possible apart from the Word. Is not this what the Lord meant when He said to His disciples, "If ye continue in My word ... ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31, 32)

But the free man is not necessarily the man who knows what is true. He is the man who is capable of acting from conscience in doing what is good. The second objective of New Church education, therefore, is the formation of a conscience in the understanding. By definition, a mans conscience consists of such truths as he possesses. Yet it is one thing to have a conscience, and another to act from it. Unless a man is motivated by the will to do what is good he will not act from conscience. The question arises therefore, If man is essentially a selfish being, and if in all that he does his natural inclination is to self, how can he be motivated to do what is good without thought of self? The truth is he cannot be, in that all that he does, self is involved. But the love of self is not necessarily evil; not-if it is subordinated to the use that self is intended to serve (TCR 403). Indeed, the Writings state that when the love of self is rightly subordinated it actually perfects the man (ibid). The real issue in the life of regeneration, therefore, is not the repudation of self, but the subordination of self to the good of a use. This teaching is important. It is not only basic to our understanding of the life of regeneration, but it is also basic to our understanding of what it is that we are trying to accomplish with our children. That is what is involved in the education, or if you prefer, in the training of the will. It begins with the childs first effort to resist parental authority, and it continues throughout life; for once we outgrow the need for parental authority we come under other authorities which must be respected if external order is to be preserved among men.

Our immediate question, however, is, What is the source of mans original desire to do what is good? If, as the Writings teach, man of himself is nothing but evil, and from birth inclines to evils of every kind, how can he possibly will what is good. We can understand, therefore, why it is that many at this day reject the thesis that of himself man is evil, and also why it is commonly said that there is much that is good in every man. The truth is that there is much that is good in man, but the good that is in man is not the mans. It is with man from the Lord. This good has its origin in man in those good loves and affections with which all men are endowed in infancy and childhood. They are referred to in the Writings as "remains." The reason for this is that they remain with man unless in later life they are destroyed by deceit. It cannot be said, therefore, that there is nothing of good in man, for there is as long as there is any remnant of innocence with man by which he can be held in good by the Lord. For the term innocence, as it is used in the Writings, does not mean blamelessness or freedom from guilt, but a willingness to be led by the Lord.

It is this disposition to good which accounts for the ideals that are characteristic of childhood and youth. But what the child does not perceive is that before man can actually do what is good he must first shun what is evil in self. What the child can understand, however, is that to do good is to do what is of order; that is, to do what is ordered by his parents and teachers. Thus it is that when we speak of the good child we have reference to the obedient and co-operative child, that is, to one who responds affirmatively to instruction. This affirmative response is the beginning of what we call conscience in that it is the first manifestation of a willingness to do what is right. But in acting from obedience the child is not acting from his own conscience, but from one that is imposed upon him by parents and teachers. Nevertheless, this is of order, and order is heavens first law. As parents and teachers, therefore, our first responsibility is to insist upon order, for when order fails, uses fail, and the use with which we are concerned is the education of the child.

Can it not be said, therefore, that the third objective of New Church education is respect for law and order? This is basic to all that we are endeavoring to do. And does it not make one with our first and second objective? For how can we know the Lord unless we come to perceive that He is Order itself? To live according to order is to live according to His commandments. There is no other way. The same applies to our second objective, which is the formation of a moral conscience in the understanding, for the moral man is the man whose life is ordered by the laws of morality. Each objective is essential to the other in that the one has no real meaning apart from the other.

Returning, then, to our original question namely, What is man? Is he not a being who is capable of acting from conscience; that is, from such truths as he possesses? And in this is he not a being who is capable of subordinating what is of self to what is good? Truly it may be said that in this capacity or ability his humanity consists. But if man is to come into the exercise of this capacity he must first learn the meaning of self-compulsion. This is a long and, at times, a difficult process, in that all of mans natural inclinations are to those things which are pleasing to self. Every educator is fully aware of this. Although for a time we may be able to impose external order upon the child, sooner or later he must begin to do this for himself. All successful accomplishment is dependent upon the individuals ability to apply himself to some useful occupation; that is, to some use which is of benefit to others as well as to self. In this sense, therefore, we may look upon education as a discipline; that is, as a means whereby the child may learn the mastery of self. When carried to extremes, discipline can defeat its own purpose, but when wisely administered and intelligently encouraged it serves as the means whereby the childs potential as an instrumentality of use is increased and developed.

Ideally speaking, the New Church man should be a self-disciplined person. This is not a matter of spiritual merit, but a matter of application to use. Believing, as we do, that the life of regeneration is a life of use, we cannot condone permissiveness in the education of children; neither can we justify the habitual excuse. Having established what we believe to be a reasonable standard of performance we must be consistent in our evaluation of the childs efforts, rebuking where rebuke is required, and recognizing where recognition is deserved. But in all discipline that is imposed from without the purpose should be that by this means the individual may learn the need for self-discipline. It is a fortunate child who learns this lesson early in life. By this we do not mean to suggest that the self-disciplined person is a regenerating man, but we do mean to imply that external order is basic to internal order, and that by means of self-discipline the way is opened whereby man may be introduced into the life of regeneration, which is a life of subordination to use.

As parents and teachers, therefore, we have two primary responsibilities: the first is the instruction of the understanding, and the second is the education of the will. Not only do we want the child to know what is true, but also to will what is good. When viewed in this light, education becomes a question of values. Thus it is that before we can talk intelligently about the curriculum we must first reflect upon values. If the purpose in education is the good and the useful man, what values should we seek to inculcate in the minds of our children? In the first place we must recognize that the good man is also a moral man; that is, a man of moral integrity. Honesty, justice, and a sound moral conscience are the basis of the spiritual life. Apart from these underlying virtues, man cannot do what is good to the neighbor. For how can a man do what is good if in his relations with others he intentionally deceives and defrauds his neighbor? Our first concern, therefore, is the establishment of a sound moral conscience in the understanding. This is a matter of instruction and emphasis--instruction in what is right, honorable and just; and emphasis upon the need for moral integrity. This will be the subject of our next lecture.

 II. THE MORAL MAN

It is sometimes said that morality is the natural state of man. If by this is meant that man is a being capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and therefore of governing himself according to established standards of acceptable social behavior, the statement is true. But if by this is meant that man is inherently good, and that evil is a condition which is imposed upon him by his social environment, the statement is not true, for the origin of all evil is in man himself; that is, in the delight which he finds in self-seeking. That is why unless man subordinates what is of self to use, he does what is evil. For despite all appearances to the contrary, how can a man do what is good if in all that he does his primary concern is for self?

We must distinguish, therefore, between true morality and moral behavior. True morality is to act according to order because external order in human relationships is basic to a life of genuine use. Take for example, the institution of marriage. Here is a human relationship which is intended to serve as the means whereby there may be a heaven from the human race; but when the order that is implicit in marriage is violated, the use is perverted. In other words, true morality is a matter of purpose, intention, or the use to which it looks. On the other hand, moral behavior is a matter of conformity to accepted social standards. It may, or it may not regard the good of the neighbor. The outstanding illustration of this is found in the Lords condemnation of the Scribes and the Pharisees, whom He referred to as hypocrites, in that they were outwardly virtuous but within were "full of extortion and excess" (Matthew 23:25).

The fact that man can hide what is evil behind a facade of moral and social virtue tends to make many suspicious of what is generally regarded as virtuous in others. But the abuse of a thing should not discredit its use. Externals are important in that it is through, or by means of externals that what is internal is expressed. To disregard that which is of external order, particularly in the training of children, is educationally unsound, for children are in externals, and with them good and evil are as yet matters of right and wrong. In the education of children, therefore, our primary responsibility is to teach what is right, and to enable them to see and acknowledge what is right by contrasting it with what is wrong. In this, and in no other way, can we lay the foundation for a sound moral conscience in the understanding. But how do we know what is right and wrong? Who are we to say that this form of behavior is acceptable, and that form of behavior is not? It is a critical question that is being asked by many at this day.

Plainly stated, therefore, our question is, is there a discernible line of difference between right and wrong? We believe that there is. We are reminded here of a recently publicized incident in which a large group of college students indulged in an act of wholesale vandalism. When formally accused of wrong doing one of the leaders of the group defended the action by saying, "The morals of society have gone down the drain." We infer from this that the youth believed that the ultimate responsibility for the destruction of the property of others did not rest with the individuals involved in the action, but with society itself. While we cannot concur with this sweeping indictment of society at large--particularly when it was intended to absolve the individual of any share of responsibility--it is true that we are living in an age of moral confusion which has its effect upon youth. The reason for this is that in their emphasis upon the desirability of self-expression many have come to regard all standards of social conduct as restrictions upon self. This indifference to the need for self-discipline is reflected not only in the widespread lack of respect for properly constituted authority but also in the literature and art forms of the day.

Yet our question remains unanswered. Is there a discernible line of difference between right and wrong? Our answer is that what is right is of order, and that what is wrong is a disorder. But immediately we become involved in the more complex question, what is of order, and what is not? To all appearances this is a matter of human opinion; yet in this, as in all things, there is a fundamental truth which applies. This truth is that it is use that determines what is of order, and in so far as men think and act from use they will perceive what is of order, and what is not. Are not all the things of creation ordered and formed according to the use which each is intended to serve? And is not the use of anything dependent upon the order and arrangement of its parts? Wherever there is a use there is order, and when order fails, uses fail. Does not this law apply to human relations as well as to things? Does not he who creates disorder in the classroom disrupt the purpose for which the class is assembled; and does not he who transgresses against the moral law subvert the use which the law is intended to protect? The point is that there is a law that governs all human relations, whether men admit it or not. This law is that what is right is of order, and that the order of anything is determined by the use that it serves.

Ideally speaking, therefore, to act according to order is to act according to use. But as the child cannot as yet think and act from the perception of use, order must be imposed upon him by others. This, as already considered, is one of the functions of parents and teachers. In this, however, patience is required, and it is in this that we, too frequently fail. Beset as we are by many things, our natural tendency is to give orders without adequate explanation--to expect of the child that which he does not yet understand. Every disciplinary infraction in which the child is involved is an opportunity for instruction, an opportunity whereby he may be led to see the effect of his behavior upon others. What the child must learn is that he is not an isolated being who may do whatever is pleasing to self, but that in all that he does he comes into relations with others, and that the good or welfare of others must be considered. This is a matter of instruction. It is not something that the child will come to see for himself. Not until instruction is given is the child capable of perceiving the relation that exists between self and others, but when instruction is given, he can understand; that is, as far as the child is capable of understanding that he does not live for himself alone. The consideration of others is the beginning of conscience. It is the first manifestation of mans humanity, which has its origin in mans capacity to rise above self.

But how can we instruct children in what is right and wrong unless we have some point of reference, some clearly defined standard moral conduct? To us this presents no problem, for we hold that the Ten Commandments are a Divinely revealed statement of spiritual and moral order. The first three commandments are the laws of spiritual life, in that they concern mans relation to the Lord; and the last six are the laws of moral life, in that they concern mans relation to the neighbor. The fourth commandment is said to be a "mediating precept," in that to honor ones father is to respect and live according to the laws of spiritual life; and to honor ones mother is to respect and live according to the laws of moral life (AE 1026:3).

We note here with interest that all of the commandments that pertain to the neighbor are expressed in the negative. The reason for this is that before man can do what is good he must first shun what is evil. The good man, therefore, is not necessarily he who is of service to the neighbor, but he who from conscience refrains from doing what is hurtful to the neighbor. As noted in our previous lecture, therefore, the formation of a conscience in the understanding is one of the primary objectives of New Church education. But what is conscience, and how is it formed in the understanding?

As previously defined, a mans conscience consists of such truths as he possesses. It cannot consist of anything else. The nature and quality of a mans conscience, therefore, is determined by the nature and quality of the truths he perceives and acknowledges. Hence we speak of a moral conscience, a social conscience, and a spiritual conscience. But man is not born with a conscience. The formation of a conscience in the understanding is a matter of instruction; that is, of knowledges which are acquired by way of instruction. For what are knowledges if they are not forms in which truths may be seen? It is, then, to those knowledges of which a mans conscience is formed that the Writings refer, when in speaking of the reformation and regeneration of man they state that "the knowledges must be from the Word" (AC 1461).

We therefore must distinguish between those knowledges of which the understanding is formed, and those knowledges of which a conscience is formed in the understanding. We believe that this distinction is important, not only because it explains what is meant by the statement that knowledges must be from the Word, but also because it throws light upon the curriculum. The understanding of man is formed by knowledges of many kinds--by means of the arts, the sciences, the humanities, and also by means of what are frequently referred to as tool subjects; but if a conscience is to be formed in the understanding, the knowledges that are taught must be from the Word. Note here the teaching: "The external man is corporeal and sensuous; nor does it receive anything celestial and spiritual unless knowledges are implanted in it, as in ground; for in these celestial things can have their recipient vessels" (AC 1461). By celestial things are meant good loves and affections; that is, the good that is with man from the Lord. But if that which is good is to be seen and acknowledged by man it must enter into the understanding as truths, for under no other form can good be seen. To this end knowledges are required, and "the knowledges must be from the Word" (AC 1461).

But what of those, of whom there are many at this day, who have no knowledge of the Word? Are there not moral men among them? The Writings say that there are. Such, we are told, are the good among the Gentiles. Can it not be said, therefore, that they have a conscience? The answer is that they do, but there is a difference. The difference is that they act from what the Writings call "a kind of conscience" (HH 514), or "something that is like a conscience" (AC 2590), in that they act from principles which they have formed for themselves that are not contrary to the truths of faith (ibid). It cannot be said, however, that acting from that which is not contrary to the truths of faith is the same as acting from truth. To act from truth is to act from the perception and acknowledgment that the laws which govern human relationships are laws of Divine order; whereas to act from what is not contrary to truth is to perceive and acknowledge that if society is to exist, there must be moral order among men. It is in this that a true moral conscience differs from what may be called a sense of moral responsibility. This also accounts for the difference between the moral law, which spiritually speaking, applies to all men, and the self-imposed mores of the group or the individual.

It may be argued, however, that the moral instruction of children is the responsibility of the home, and not of the school. We agree that the primary responsibility rests with the home, but the school is not something apart from the home. It is an extension of its use. In this, therefore, we share a mutual responsibility. As teachers we cannot say that we have done our part if we teach our students to read, to write, and to perform intricate calculations with the Cuisenaire rods. There is far more to the teacher-student relationship than this. By virtue of the responsibilities that are implicit in the use he performs, the teacher is the spiritual and moral preceptor of another generation. And if the child ask bread, will you give him a stone? (Matthew 7:10) It is not enough to equip the child with those knowledges which will enable him to perform some useful occupation. Important as this is, the child has other needs which must be satisfied, and the first of these is the need for moral integrity.

The word integrity is derived from the Latin word integritas, meaning what is sound, wholesome, healthy, pure and complete. As no other word in the English language, it conveys to the mind the Old Testament concept of the good man; that is, the man in whom there is no moral blemish. The fact that only a few of the persons mentioned in the Old Testament measured up to this standard of moral perfection does not efface the ideal. Even as the Old Testament is the basis and containant of the later revelations, so moral integrity is the basis, the containant, and the ultimate expression of the spiritual life. Thus it was that when a certain young man inquired of the Lord concerning eternal life, the Lord answered him, saying, "Keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17), for in their complex, the Ten Commandments contain all the laws of spiritual and moral life:

We therefore have reason to be concerned with the specious arguments of that which is referred to as the new morality. What we are being told is that true morality stems from the creative instinct of the individual, and not from some preconceived concept of a God who is good. How, it is asked, can a man sin against a God whose existence is a matter of subjective opinion rather than of demonstrable fact? Nevertheless, the proponents of the new morality agree that man is a selfish being; but they say, the fact that man is a selfish being does not mean that he is depraved. Hence they say, let us free ourselves from the guilt complex that is inherent in the religious interpretation of life and release the creative energies that are inherent in self. Yet who is to determine what is creative and what is not? By what standard are we to judge the activities of man? We, too, agree that the love of self is not necessarily evil--not when it is subordinated to the use it is intended to serve (TCR 403). It is here that we part company with the twentieth century moralists in that we do not believe that man can rightly determine what is good apart from the acknowledgment of God. But we do not think of God as an indefinable Being of whom we can from no determinate idea. We think of Him as a Divine Man, whose love and wisdom are revealed in the spiritual sense of "the Word which is from Him and is Himself" (TCR 776).

When seen and understood in the spiritual sense, the Ten Commandments open the way to a new concept of God; but in this, the spiritual sense in nowise breaks with the letter of the Word. For as stated, the Ten Commandments are the laws of moral life; and as the moral life is the basis and containant of the spiritual life, what is interiorly involved in these commandments is dependent upon an observance of these laws as formulated in the letter. "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"--these laws are as true today as they were in the day when they were promulgated from Mount Sinai. The fact that man is no longer living in a primitive society does not alter these laws, which are intended to govern his relation with his neighbor. He who covets his neighbors wife or commits adultery is as guilty of a sin against society as was the ancient Israelite. Basic human relationships do not change merely because man lives in a more sophisticated society. We therefore cannot subscribe to a philosophy of life which would have us believe that the only valid criterion of a moral life is creative self-expression. The assumption here is that self is capable of determining for self what is good. In effect, what the proponents of the new morality are saying is that self is good, and that in the determination of ones relations with others, man need not be concerned with some preconceived concept of moral law. It is this denial of the moral law that accounts for the widespread reaction against conformity of all kinds--for the blurring of moral and ethical standards which is symptomatic of our age, for the general state of confusion prevalent among youth, and for the increasing lack of respect for external law and order.

As New Church parents and teachers we have reason to be deeply concerned by this. Whatever we do we must not discount the impact of this appeal for self-expression upon the mind of youth. Because the immature mind sees in it the means of liberation from authority, it seems to give promise of a less inhibited, and therefore a better way of life. What is really involved, however, is the promise of freedom without moral responsibility; that is, a way of life which is good because man is free to do whatever seems good to self. Like the serpent in the garden of Eden who beguiled the woman, the advocates of the new morality would have us believe that morally and spiritually speaking, man is not accountable to anyone save himself. True, they believe that man should live a creatively useful life, and that neither nature nor society will tolerate excess, but they do not believe that moral order is a law that is inscribed upon life. In other words, they deny the existence of a God who has predetermined for man what is good, holding firmly to the Thesis that it is man who shall determine for himself what is good.

The purpose of all law is that there may be order, and as already considered, order is basic to a life of use. Thus it is that in ordering the life of the child our purpose is that he may come to respect what is of order. This is a gradual process which is effected by means of instruction and by emphasis upon that which is right as distinguished from that which is wrong. That which we seek is not blind obedience, but a progressively enlightened understanding of the importance of acceptable standards of conduct. This is the beginning of conscience; that is of the will to do what is good because it is according to order. This inevitably involves something of self-compulsion, and once the child is capable of this the way has been opened whereby he may be led out of a life of self- insistence into a life of use. Yet while self-compulsion is essential to the life of regeneration, it is not to be confused with it. Man may compel himself in externals for the sake of a selfish motive as well as from a good motive. To all appearances a man may be a man of moral integrity, whereas in reality the virtues he seems to possess may be nothing more than a front for evil design. That is what is known as the sin of deceit. Of all the evils to which man inclines, this is the most devastating, in that he who willfully and continually deceives others destroys in himself every remnant of innocence with which he has been endowed by the Lord (HH 578; AC 9013). That is why we must impress upon our children the importance of honesty; not only of the need for honesty in their relations with others, but also the need for honesty in the appraisal of self.

The fourth objective of New Church education, therefore, is moral integrity. Whether we say moral integrity or honesty it does not matter, in that honesty is the complex of all the moral virtues (AC 2915). Thus in speaking of those who are in civil and moral good but have not as yet been instructed in spiritual truths, the Writings state: "Because they live in the good of charity, and what is just and equitable as to civil life, and in what is honest and decorous as to moral life, they are such that the Lord can be with them. For the Lords presence with man is in good, and therefore in what is just and equitable, and further in what is honest and decorous." To this they add the statement that "what is honest is the complex of all moral virtues; what is decorous being only the form thereof" (AC 2915). It is obvious that those who are spoken of here are the good among the Gentiles; that is, those who are outside of the church but who sincerely try to live a good moral life. This applies also to children, in that they, too, are as yet outside of the church and are therefore in what the Writings refer to as the Gentile state.

In the application of this teaching to children we can see why it is that honesty is a matter of such great importance, for he who intentionally deceives others does so because he does not wish others to know his real intent. The reason for this is that what he wills or intends is not good, and in hiding his evil behind a pretense of innocence he perverts or subverts in himself that which is good. This, we are told in the Writings, is the origin of all evil (CL 444); for what is evil but the perversion of good, and what is falsity but the perversion of the truth? When the difference between good and evil is understood in this way we can see why we must cultivate in our children a respect for truth.

As adults, however, we have no difficulty in understanding why it is that when the child has done what is wrong he seeks the protection of the lie. What he fears is the judgment that is brought upon self when an evil in self is exposed. This fear is a natural instinct, and the more deeply implicated the child becomes in wrongdoing the more this fear is aroused. Yet the child must learn that in judgment there is also mercy, in that in all punishment that is administered by those who love us, the primary concern is for our own good. But whether the child comes to recognize this or not, the important thing is that the lie be brought out into the open so that the evil which prompted it may be seen in its true perspective.

It was Bishop N. D. Pendleton who once said that "the aim of New Church education is a frank and a fearless youth." What he was speaking of here was moral courage; that is, of the youth "who holds hypocrisy in contempt and spurns the lie." To what extent we have succeeded in this we cannot say, for the moral virtues are not measurable as is scholastic accomplishment. Nevertheless, it is essential to our ultimate purpose, in that honesty in human relations is basic to the life of regeneration. How can he who deceives others be honest with himself, and if man is not honest with himself, how can he acknowledge what is evil in self? Note here the teaching of the Writings that the first of charity is to put away what is evil, and the second is to do goods that are of use (TCR 435); also the teaching that charity itself is acting justly and faithfully with those with whom we have any dealings (TCR 422). Nothing could be more explicit than this. The first essential of a life of good is moral integrity, and as parents and teachers our first responsibility is to instruct our children in those fundamental truths which are the laws of moral life. That this is so plainly evident from the further teaching of the Writings, when it is said: "Moral life, when it is also spiritual, is a life of charity, because the practices of the moral life and of charity are the same; for charity is willing rightly towards the neighbor, and consequently acting rightly towards him; and this is also moral life" (TCR 444). Is not this what the Lord meant when He said, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them"? (Matthew 7:12) This, the Writings observe, is the law of spiritual life; but they add, "This same law is the universal law of moral life" (ibid).

But as the child is in externals, and not as yet in internals, that is to say, as the child can do what is good from others but not as yet from himself, he must be held in what is good by those who are responsible for him. By what is good here we have reference to what is of order; that is, to a life that is regulated by civil, social and moral order. Concerning this the Writings also state: "Every man is [or should be] taught by his parents and teachers to live morally; that is, to act the part of a good citizen, to discharge the duties of an honorable life (which relate to the various virtues that are the essentials of an honorable life), and to bring them forth through the formalities of an honorable life which are called proprieties; and as he advances in years he is [or should be] taught to add to these what is rational, and thereby to perfect what is moral in his life. For in children, even to early youth, moral life is natural, and becomes afterwards more and more rational. Anyone who reflects well upon ... [this] can see that a moral life is the same as the life of charity, and that this is to act rightly towards the neighbor, and to so regulate the life as to preserve it from contamination by evils.... And yet in the first period of life, a moral life is the life of charity in outermosts; that is, it is ... [only in exteriors] ... For there are four periods of life through which man passes ... the first is when he acts from others according to instruction; the second [is] when he acts from himself under the guidance of the understanding; the third [is] when the will acts upon the understanding, and the understanding regulates the will ... the fourth [is] when he acts from confirmed principle and deliberate purpose" (TCR 443).

It is with the first and second states of mans life that we as educators are primarily concerned; that is, with those states up to, and through, adolescence in which the child first acts from instruction, and as a moral conscience is formed in the understanding, begins to assume responsibility for his own conduct. These are critical years in the life of any man, and much depends upon the nature of the instruction that is given. If the instruction is from the Word the way is opened to the acknowledgment and perception of spiritual and celestial things; that is, to the acknowledgment and perception of genuine goods and truths which are from the Lord alone (See AC 1461). The reason for this is that when taught from the Word, the child perceives that the laws of moral order are not merely rules of conduct that are imposed upon him by others, but that they are Divine laws which are inscribed upon life. When understood in this way the mind of the child is opened to a more interior understanding of what is involved in the Ten Commandments, for these laws are not only the laws of moral order; they are also the laws of spiritual life. Is not this what the Lord meant when He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"? (Matthew 5:17)

Moral order is basic; it is essential to all that we do, but of itself it is not enough. If the law is to be fulfilled, that is, if man is to attain to the inner purpose of those Divine laws which were given through Moses, the intent of the law must also be understood. Thus it was that when the Lord came into the world He taught men a new doctrine, saying, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another" (John 13:34). This doctrine is what is known as the social gospel. When understood in the light of this doctrine, the laws of Moses assume a meaning that they do not otherwise possess. Not only is man to refrain from doing that which is evil to the neighbor, but by way of such services as he is capable of performing he is do that which is good to the neighbor. This concept of social service is the true spirit of Christianity, and it is a matter of vital importance in the education of the child. For this reason it will be the subject of our next lecture.

 III. THE SOCIAL MAN

At this day we can scarcely conceive of the impact that Christian doctrine had upon the minds of men. Here was a doctrine that established an entirely new set of values in social relations, and required a complete readjustment in mans way of thinking and acting. It has been rightly said that nowhere does history provide anything as pure and as unselfish as the teachings of Christ. We do not mean to imply by this that the Old Testament fails to provide examples of unselfish devotion to others. In Josephs forgiveness of his brethren, in Jonathans devotion to David, in the willingness of Moses to sacrifice his life for his people we find striking illustrations of selflessness. These, however, are exceptions, and when understood in the spiritual sense it is apparent that they were prophetic in nature in that they served as prototypes of Him who was yet to come. But it was not until the Lord came that the ideal of service to humanity was actually formulated in doctrine. Was it not He who instructed men, saying, "Ye have heard that it hath been said [by them of old time], Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies ... do good to them that hate you" (Matthew 5: 43, 44); "Give to him that asketh [of] thee and ... turn not thou away" (Matthew 5:42).

The difference between the Old and the New Testament is clearly reflected in what was best in Judaism and in Christianity. Note that whereas the ideal prescribed in the Old Testament is blamelessness of character, the New Testament not only allows for human frailty but also provides for deliverance from evil through service to ones fellow man. It is fair to say, therefore, that Judaism was based upon a negative concept of morality; that is, upon the things which a man must not do if he would be perfect in the sight of God. As distinguished from this, Christianity afforded a positive concept of morality in that it directed the thought to those things which a man should do. "Thou shall not kill, thou shalt not steal"--this was the spirit of Judaism. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works" (Matthew 5:16)--this was the spirit of Christianity.

What we are considering here are two different concepts of good. Whereas in the Old Testament the emphasis is upon the works of the law, in the New Testament the emphasis is upon the works which are implicit in the spirit of the law, namely, the works of charity. Yet it is to be noted that historically speaking, the one preceded the other. The reason for this is apparent in that before man can do what is good to the neighbor, he must first shun what is evil as a sin against the neighbor. Thus in the education of the individual a moral conscience must first be formed in the understanding, for in this, and in no other way, can true social conscience take form in the mind. In this we are reminded of the young man who inquired of the Lord, saying, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" The Lord answered him, saying, "Keep the commandments." But the youth insisted, saying, "All these things have I kept from my youth up; what lack I yet?" There was but one answer to this: "Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor ... and come and follow Me" (Matthew 19:16, 17, 20, 21).

While relatively few at this day believe in the Word as an authoritative statement of truth, there are many who subscribe to the ideal of social service that is plainly taught in the New Testament. Hence they speak of the Lord as the perfect man, as the best of men, and as one who set an example to all men. What is referred to here is his humanity, that is, His concern for all men. What many have failed to perceive is that His humanity is evidence of His Divinity, and that in denying His Divinity, His humanity cannot be understood. Yet be this as it may, all men of good will can perceive that the New Testament opened the way to a new concept of social morality that has had a profound effect upon the history of civilization. For almost two thousand years countless numbers have been inspired by the Christian ideal of service to the neighbor; and nowhere, either by word or suggestion, do the Writings depreciate the importance of this. On the contrary, the doctrine of use, which is the doctrine of charity for the New Church, directly teaches that services are forms of use, and that apart from a form, a use cannot come forth or exist.

The life of regeneration, as we understand it, is a life of use. It is for this that we are educating our children. But as the child cannot as yet think of use apart from the person to whom good is to be done, his understanding of use is limited to the idea of service. Thus in the education of children the concept of service is a basic ideal. This brings us to the fifth objective of New Church education, which may be defined as a sense of social responsibility. This is dependent upon the formation of a social conscience in the understanding. By a social conscience, as differentiated from a moral conscience, we have reference to those things which ought to be done as distinguished from those things which are not to be done. Our first responsibility in this regard is to establish in the mind of the child a sense of obligation to others. This is a matter of instruction and insistence which must begin in the home and be extended into the life of the school. It is the fortunate child whose parents and teachers realize the importance of this.

Living, as we do, in an age in which so much is done for the child and so little seems to be expected of him in the way of returns that benefit others, we are forced to ask ourselves how we can impress upon the child the realization that he has obligations to others. There is only one answer to this; that is, the assignment of certain well-defined tasks which should represent the childs contribution to the home and the school. Such assignments may take many different forms, but whatever form they take they should serve some positive need which is understood by the child. Of little children little may be expected, but as the childs capacity for being of some real assistance begins to develop, he should be required to contribute to the welfare of others, both at home and in school. This is particularly true of the child in the upper grades of elementary school. This is the age in which a sense of obligation to others should be thoroughly instilled. To postpone the time for this training for life is to make the problem ten times more difficult. If on reaching adolescence a child has not yet learned the meaning of obligation, we have on our hands a selfish and unattractive youth.

It is this training that gives rise to a closer approach to an understanding of what is involved in a life of use. The reason for this is that a sense of obligation opens the way to a sense of responsibility, and apart from responsibilities, man cannot enter into the life of use. In all that we do are brought into relations with others and wherever there is a human relationship there is a need to which man should respond. Hence the meaning of the word responsibility, which directly implies the ability to respond to the needs of others. While every human being is endowed with this ability, it does not come naturally, that is, apart from some effort of the will. For such is the nature of man that he inclines to those things in which self delights, and in responding to the needs of others we encounter resistance from self. That is why to the child, and even to the adult, that which is expected of us by others frequently seems unreasonable in that it seems to be asking too much of self. While there are situations in which this is undoubtedly true, for the most part our negative reaction stems from our insistence upon doing those things in which self delights. What is needed here is self-discipline; that is, the ability to compel ourselves to do what is rightfully expected of us even though we take no delight in doing it.

It is the teaching of the Writings that the spirit of compulsion is an evil thing. This, however, does not apply to children, who must be held in external order until they are capable of assuming this responsibility for themselves. But the Writings also teach that man ought to compel himself; that is, he should "compel himself to do what is good to obey ... [those] things [which have been] commanded by the Lord, and to speak ... [what is true]" (AC 1937). To compel ones self to do what is good is to compel ones self to do what is of use to the neighbor. While it is true that the child cannot actually do what is good from himself, he can do good from others. To do this, however, the child must be willing to be led by his parents and teachers. It is in this willingness that his innocence consists. But as first states of innocence gradually recede, the child more and more wills to be led by himself. The child soon learns however, that there are limitations set upon the expression of self. Thus he begins to perceive the need for self-control in his relations with others. In this the child is to be encouraged, for in so far as the child is capable of disciplining himself, the need for parental control is diminished.

One of the ideals of New Church education, therefore, is the self-disciplined youth; that is, a youth who is capable of accepting the responsibilities that may be rightfully expected of one his age. This is a matter of maturity, for what is maturity if it is not the ability to accept an increasing measure of responsibility for ones self and for others? The mature man is the responsible man, and the responsible man is the man who through determination and self-discipline has acquired a mastery of himself. Hence we speak of the emotionally matured person; that is, the person upon whom we can depend in dealing with the problems of life. Is not this the kind of person that New Church education should seek to produce? How can we talk about the life of use apart from the responsibilities that are basic to the performance of any use? An affirmative response to use implies both the willingness and the ability to be of service to the neighbor. If, then, we mean what we say when we speak of use, it is imperative that we instill in our children a social as well as a moral conscience.

I am fully aware that there are those who feel that in this, New Church education is lacking. The reasons given are the relative isolation of our schools and the resulting lack of awareness on the part of our children of the world outside of their own experience. But we are convinced that the reasons for New Church education far outweigh its built-in limitations; neither does it follow that a restricted social environment necessarily results in a lack of social conscience. Charity begins at home, that is, within the sphere of the childs own environment. In the life of the home and the school there are ample opportunities for the child to learn the basic lessons of responsibility to others. As his contacts widen and he is introduced progressively into the uses of adult life, what he has learned may be readily applied to the more extensive fields of co-operation with others, The important thing is that while yet a child, man should learn that he does not live for himself alone, that there is a purpose in human existence, and that this purpose is dependent upon an affirmative response on the part of the individual to the needs of others.

No amount of worldly wisdom or experience can take the place of a conviction. This is particularly true if that conviction stems from a faith that there is a God, and that a life of use is a life according to His commandments. Man may live a life of apparent usefulness for many reasons; as for example, for the sake of honor, reputation or gain. But he who serves others for the sake of the advantages which accrue to self does not actually will what is good to the neighbor in that in all that he does his primary concern is for self. This raises an interesting question: is man actually capable of a purely disinterested motive, that is, of a motive that is devoid of concern for self? In answer to this question we must distinguish between the love of self and selfishness. As already considered, the love of self is not necessarily evil, not if it is subordinated to the use it is intended to serve. When understood in this way it may be said that man is capable of acting from a disinterested motive, that is, in relation to the use; for when man acts for the sake of the use, self becomes a matter of secondary importance. It cannot be said, however, that in so acting, self is a matter of no concern; neither should it be, for self is an instrumentality of use, and he who serves the end must regard the means. But he who acts selfishly has no regard for use except in so far as the performance of uses to others serves as a means for his own advancement. With such the order of life is inverted in that they value the means more than the end, and seek to acquire for self the rewards that properly belong to the use.

In the education of children, therefore, what we have in mind is a human being who is capable not only of distinguishing between right and wrong, and thus of acting from a sound moral conscience, but also one who is capable of serving others for the sake of the use he may be to others; that is, one who is capable of acting from a true social conscience. But as the child cannot as yet differentiate between the use and the service performed, and because he is motivated in all that he does by the thought of the rewards which accrue to self, he cannot as yet act from a true social conscience. To act from conscience is to do what is good from the acknowledgment of truth, and the truth is that man cannot do good from himself. The reason for this is that he who acts from self acts for the sake of self, and while what he does may be of benefit to others, it is not the reason why the good is done. Hence the teaching of the Writings that "good itself becomes not good when reward for it is thought of, for then a selfish end instantly adjoins itself, and in so far as this is the case, it induces a denial that the good is from the Lord" (AC 386). "Nevertheless," we are told, "reward is of service ... with those who have not yet been initiated ... [into] good and its affections" (ibid); that is to say, it is of service with those in whom there is yet something of innocence, that is, with those who are yet willing to be led by the Lord. Hence it is said that "it must needs be that... [man] is long kept in a kind of mediate good" (AC 4063), by which is meant a good that partakes of both spiritual and natural affections. It is called "mediate good" because it serves as the means whereby man may be led progressively out of natural good into genuine or spiritual good. This is the good of childhood. It cannot be otherwise, for the child is incapable of acting apart from some delight in the reward which accrues to self in doing what is good.

It is, then, by means of services which he performs that man is introduced into the life of use. While it is true that in this man may be motivated by a purely selfish motive, it is also true that apart from some service man cannot be of use to the neighbor. That is why we must impress upon our children the importance of service. In an age when many are demanding more and more remuneration for less and less effort on their part, we have reason to be concerned about the effect of this indifference toward basic responsibilities upon the mind of youth. The world does not owe us a living. All that we can rightly expect is the opportunity to be of some use. Even this must be earned by way of preparation for use. This is the function of education. But this is not merely a matter of the skills and knowledges that are prerequisite to any occupation; it is also a matter of self-discipline, of attitude and basic values. We come, then, to the heart of our subject, that is, to the question of social values. Like moral values, they are essential to a life of use; but as already considered, social responsibility differs from moral responsibility, even as that which is to be done differs from that which is not to be done. Yet the question is, what is it that is to be done? The answer to this is found in the Lords words: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12). This is the law of social responsibility, and except in so far as this law is applied, man cannot do that which is good.

All true social values are based upon the recognition that we have a responsibility to others. In whatever we do, therefore, others are to be considered. It is this that the child and the immature adult does not yet understand. What seems good to the child is the freedom to do that which he wills. Thus the child tends to regard the demands that are made upon him as restrictions upon self rather than as opportunities to be of service to others. That is why New Church education, although addressed to the understanding, is primarily concerned with the will. It is through the understanding that we seek to establish in the mind of the child that which is of value. But knowledges are not values. They are only the means whereby that which is of value may be seen and rationally understood. Man values that which he loves, and the loves of mans life are what constitute his will.

We all are familiar with the popular slogan that the proper concern of education is the whole man. With this we agree. But our primary interest is the real man; that is, the man to whom the Writings refer as the essential man. In essentials, that is, in essence, every man is what he loves. How, then, can we talk intelligently about education unless we see in it the means whereby man may be led out of the love of self into the love of use? To love what is of use is to love the Lord. Is not this what the Lord meant when He said: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me"? (Matthew 25:40) How can man love the Lord unless he loves the good of the neighbor; and how can man love the good of the neighbor unless he wills what is good to the neighbor; and how can he will what is good to the neighbor unless through the instrumentality of services he seeks to promote his good? The very nature of love is to serve him who is loved. In no other way can love come into its delights.

What the Writings offer us here, therefore, is a new sense of social values. Whereas in the New Testament the appearance is that it is the person of the neighbor who is to be loved, in the Writings our thought is directed from the person to the good that is from the Lord with the person. This good is the good of the use which the person performs. Hence we are taught in the Writings that "to love the neighbor, viewed in itself, is not to love the person, but the good that is in the person" (TCR 417); also that "he who loves the neighbor from charity conjoins himself with his good and not with his person" (Doctrine of Faith 21). What we have here, therefore, is a new doctrine which is intended to govern man in his social relationships. It applies not only to the business or profession in which a man is engaged, but also to marriage, to the care and education of children, to friendship, and to all other human relationships which comprise the life of society. This does not mean that the person of the neighbor is not to be loved, but that he is to be loved because of the good that he does and not because we are attracted to him as a person.

What is it, then, that the Writings are telling us here? Is it not that he who loves that which is good loves the neighbor eminently? (TCR 419) That is why it is so important that during the formative years of his life, man be held in the thought and acknowledgment of a God who is good. His whole sense of values depends upon it. Not that the child can differentiate between the person and the good that is done by the person, but he can perceive that to do good is to do what the Lord wills, and that in acting contrary to the Divine will he does what is evil. Spiritually speaking, there is no other way in which a true social conscience can be formed in the mind of a child. By a true social conscience we mean a conscience which is based upon the conviction that there are universal laws of order by which man is to be governed in his relations with others. Yet no man is compelled to believe this, for "it is a law of the Divine Providence that man should not be compelled by external means to think and [to] will, and thus to believe and love, the things of religion" (DP 129). It is interesting to observe that mans freedom to deny the Divine law is protected by it.

But what are these values of which we speak, and how are they to be determined? The answer to this is that the true value of anything is in the use which it serves. Take for example, the institution of marriage. It is stated in the Writings that the use of conjugal love excels all the other uses of creation (CL 68, 143). Thus in all things which pertain to marriage, such as an orderly relation between the sexes, the laws of morality, the establishment of the home, and the care and education of children, there are values; that is, something of spiritual, social and moral worth. But apart from the uses that marriage is intended to serve, its value Cannot be seen and understood. Is it not, therefore, the responsibility of parents and teachers to impress upon the mind of the child a true ideal of marriage, that is, an ideal that looks to what is of use in marriage? This also involves instruction concerning the responsibilities that are implicit in the uses of marriage, for he who does not respond to a use into which he has entered of his own free will perverts and subverts that which is of value in the use.

Another illustration of this is education. Who, at this day, questions the value of a formal education? Whereas only fifty years ago relatively few were convinced of the need for education beyond the secondary school level, today our colleges and universities cannot meet the demand. While it is true that the reasons for this are found in the economic and social changes which have taken place in the past fifty years, nevertheless, all save a few would agree that here is something of value. In this context we can see that the terms use and value are interchangeable, for the value of an education is its use to the individual, that is, to the use which he makes of it. Thus it is that in common speech, when we speak of the use of a thing we also have reference to its value; and when rightly interpreted, may not the doctrine of use be referred to as the doctrine of values?

What, then, is the true purpose of education? Is it not the means whereby we may open the mind of the child to the perception of what is of value? Knowledge is not an end in itself. It is but the means whereby man acquires the learning that is essential to a useful life. As the Writings state: "It is known that a man learns many things in [his] infancy and childhood for the sole use that ... [through] them as means he may learn ... more useful [things]; and successively ... [through] these ... [things] ... still more useful, [even] until ... he learns those [that are] of eternal life" (AC 3982). To perceive what is eternal in anything is to perceive its real use. Thus it is that if we reject from our thought the idea of what is eternal in marriage, the real use of marriage cannot be seen. The same applies to education, for he who does not perceive what is eternal in the educational process, that is, he who does not come to acknowledge that which is good and true, is not an educated man. He may be an informed man or a learned man, but he is not a wise man; that is, a man who is motivated by a true sense of values that can come only through the perception of what is of use.

By what is of use we mean that which is from the Lord. This is the good of use; that is, the good which men do to others through the instrumentality of the uses and services they perform. The appearance is that this good is from man himself, but the Writings insist that this is not so. Here is the real difference between New Church education and those self-derived educational philosophies which would have us believe that social and moral good are the outcome of enlightened self-interest. What they mean by this is that man is essentially good, and that the good that he does is from no other source. The real difference, therefore, centers upon the nature of man. What is he, and what is he intended to become? As considered in our first lecture, our answer is that man is a being born into the capacity of doing what is good, not from himself, but from the Lord through His Word. But man is not born man, but only into the capacity to become man. If he is to become man, however, he first must be instructed, for as the Writings observe: "Without instruction man is neither man nor beast, but ... a form which can receive within him what makes .. . man" (CL 156b; Alden translation 152a). For what is man if he is not a form of use; that is, a living form who by virtue of his ability to see and acknowledge what is true can, if he will, do what is good; and this, not for the sake of himself, but for others. This is the true measure of a man, and apart from this concept of what man is we can have no true concept of values.

 IV. THE SPIRITUAL MAN

So far in this series of lectures we have been considering the primary objectives of New Church education. By primary here we mean that which must come first in the education of the child. They also may be referred to as mediate objectives, in that they serve as the means whereby man may be led to the final or ultimate objective in life. Concerning this the Writings state: "When ... man is being regenerated, the internal man is to be conjoined with the external ... These cannot be conjoined without ... [media]" (AC 3913). Also: "There are means and methods of the Divine Providence ... [The] means are... [those from which a] man becomes a man and is perfected ... [as] to his understanding and his will ... [The] ... [methods] are .. . those ... [through which] these things are accomplished" (DP 335). The means by which man is perfected as to his understanding are called knowledges, and the means by which he is perfected as to his will are called services. These means, we are told, are infinite in their variety [ibid]. But our interest in this series is confined to those which we believe to be essential. These means or mediate objectives are:

1. A knowledge of the Lord as He is revealed in His Word.
2. The formation of a conscience in the understanding.
3. Respect for law and order.
4. Moral integrity.
5. A sense of social responsibility.
6. An affection for truth.

It is the last mentioned objective with which we are concerned in this lecture, for how can man become spiritual unless he is affected by truth? Our subject, therefore, is the spiritual man; that is, the man who wills what is good, not from himself, nor for the sake of himself, but because he perceives that to do good is to live according to truth. This perception is basic. It applies to all that we do. The whole emphasis of New Church education, therefore, is upon truth; not upon truth as an end in itself, but as the means whereby man may be led into the life of good. Yet immediately the question arises, how do we know that the Writings are the truth? Our answer to this is that while the Writings may seem like any other theological commentary when superficially considered, when viewed in the light of their relation to the Old and New Testaments it becomes apparent that no human mind could have conceived of these things. This, at least, is our faith; neither is it a blind faith, but one which is addressed to reason, that is, to the reason of him who is prepared to believe that there is a God and that He is one.

The validity of New Church education, therefore, is dependent upon the validity of those primary truths upon which the Writings rest. These are that there is a God, that He is a Divine Man, that there is a purpose in creation, and that His purpose is plainly revealed in the spiritual sense of the Word, for it is the spiritual sense which gives life or meaning to the letter of the Word, and can convince even the natural man, if, as the Writings say, "he is willing to be convinced" (SS 4). It is, then, to those who will to believe in God that the Writings are addressed. But conviction can come only with understanding; that is, by means of an understanding of the Lord as He is revealed in the Word. That is why we hold that a knowledge of the Word is the first objective of New Church education. It is that upon which all else depends. But as frequently noted, knowledge is not an end in itself. The true function of knowledge is that man may be of some use. This applies not only to every occupation, skill and profession, each of which has its purpose, but also to life, for life also has a purpose, and this is that from being natural, man may become spiritual; that is, being who, in whatever he does, is motivated by the delight that is to be found in the service of use.

It is the teaching of the Writings that man is not born spiritual, but is born natural; that is, into the delights of self and the world. In other words, these delights come naturally to man; that is to say, without any effort on his part. But the question is, how, from being natural, does man become spiritual, and what is involved in this process? For the most part, men think of the spiritual man as one who is detached from the basic realities and normal pleasures of life. This, at least, was the Christian concept of spirituality, and it accounts for the ascetic ideal which would seem to be the logic of the New Testament. Did not the Lord instruct His disciples, saying, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36); "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world" (John 15:19); also that "he that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" (John 12:25). We can readily understand, therefore, how it was that the Christian concept of the spiritual life became identified with self-abnegation and ascetic practices. After all, the question does arise, "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36); and according to the Gospel of John, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63).

We note with interest, however, that in this, as in so many instances, the spiritual sense breaks with the letter, for we read in the Writings: "It is believed by many, that to renounce the world, and to live in the spirit ... is to reject worldly things, which are ... riches and honors; to be continually engaged in pious meditation concerning God ... to lead a life in prayers ... and also to afflict ones self" (HD 126). But this is not so. "To renounce the world is to love God ... and the neighbor; and God is loved when man lives according to His commandments, and the neighbor is loved when man performs uses. Therefore in order that man may receive ... light... [from] heaven, it is ... necessary that he should live in the world, and in offices and business there. A life abstracted from worldly things is a life of thought and faith separate from the life of love and charity, in which life the will of good and doing of good to the neighbor perishes" (HD 126). From this it is evident that when the Writings speak of the spiritual man they do not have reference to him who withdraws from the world and lives a life of external piety, but to him, and I quote, "who ... [acts] justly and sincerely in every office, in every business, and in every work ... from a heavenly origin" (HD 128), that is, from an interior affection for use. It is as simple as that.

But here a question arises: if, as stated, the spiritual man is one who acts justly and sincerely in every office, business and work, wherein does he differ from the social man of whom we spoke in our previous lecture? From any observable standpoint there is no difference, for like the kingdom of heaven, of which the Lord spoke in the Scriptures, an interior affection for use "cometh not with observation" (Luke 17:20). Neither can we say, "Lo here! or, lo there!" (ibid) The real difference, therefore, is one of intent; for whereas the spiritual man acts from a spiritual conscience, that is, from the acknowledgment and perception that the neighbor who is to be loved is the good of the use which the person performs, the social man, although he aspires to what is spiritual, is as yet motivated in much that he does by the thought of the rewards which accrue to self. In this his motives are said to be mixed. This, as noted in our previous lecture, applies to all children, and to a greater or less degree to adults Hence the teaching that "it must needs be that ... [man] is long kept in a kind of mediate good" (AC 4063), that is, in affections and delights which partake both of use and of self. This is a marvelous provision of providence, for otherwise who could be led out of self into the interior affection of use?

Concerning this, note what the Writings have to say about those evils with which good can be commingled, and those with which it cannot. The evils with which good cannot be commingled are said to be those that "are contrary to love to God and love toward the neighbor" (AC 3993). These are hatred, cruelty, revenge, contempt for others in comparison with self, and those persuasions of falsity which lead to deceit (ibid). But the evils with which good can be commingled are said to be those which "are not contrary to love to God and love toward the neighbor" (ibid). Examples that are given are the desire to excel others in civil and moral life, and the simulation and cunning that have what is good as their end (ibid). The same may be said of numerous evils, which although of self may yet be directed by the Lord to the service of good. Thus it is further stated: "The evils with which goods, and the falsities with which truths can be mingled are wonderfully disposed ... by the Lord; for they are not conjoined together, still less united into a one, but are adjoined and applied to one another, and this in such a manner that the goods together with the truths are in the middle and as it were in the center, and by degrees toward the circumferences or circuits are such evils and falsities" (ibid).

There are, then, two kinds of evils: those in which nothing but evil is intended, and therefore to which nothing of good can possibly be adjoined, and those which although essentially selfish, yet because what is evil is not intended, may serve as a means to which something of good may be temporarily adjoined. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the childs desire to excel others. We cannot say that in this the childs motive is good, for the satisfaction that he finds in the realization that in this, or in that, he is better than others, is what promotes in him the desire for success. This is the educators dilemma. How far should we go in encouraging in the mind of the child the desirability of personal success? The answer seems to be, in so far as it does not breed in him contempt for others in comparison with himself. This is the danger that is inherent in motivation through mediate goods. Yet apart from mediate goods there is no way in which we can appeal to the child, for it is in these goods that his sense of values consists. What he values is of self and those things which in one way or another are associated in his mind with self. In other words, his values are natural values, and were it not for the fact that something of good, that is, something of spiritual value, could be adjoined to them, no man could ever become spiritual. To quote from the Writings: "Unless this were so, no man could possibly be regenerated" (AC 3993).

In the education of children, therefore, we are mindful of the fact that although the child is primarily motivated by the thought of what is delightful to self, to this motivation ideals may be adjoined which open the way to the perception of use. As parents and teachers, it is our responsibility to stress these ideals and to keep them before the minds of our children. Honor, integrity, decency, respect for authority, patriotism and chastity are not outmoded concepts. They are the means whereby the mind of the child is introduced into the understanding of that which is good. Here is something of value--of value because although the child attributes these virtues to himself, he may yet be led to perceive that they are not from himself but from the Lord. This is the true function of New Church education, and it is in this that it differs from those societally derived philosophies of education which would have us believe that the only valid criterion of good is social effectiveness, and that "the good and the useful man" is one who succeeds in adapting to his social environment.

Nowhere, either by word or by implication, do the Writings downgrade the importance of man as a social being, but they insist that man is also a spiritual being. Neither should we as educators in any way minimize the importance of social adjustment. This does not mean that the child must follow the crowd, but that he must learn to live and work with other people. This is basic, not only to social performance, but also to spiritual life. We agree with the modern educational theory, therefore, in its emphasis upon the social man, but we do not agree that the ability to adapt to ones social environment is all that there is to life. It is perfectly true that every living organism must learn to adapt to its environment if it is to survive. In this, man does not differ from the plant or the animal. But as man is a social being as well as a physical being, he must learn also to adapt to the constantly changing conditions of his social environment. This is the problem with which modern psychiatry is essentially concerned. But unlike the animal, man is not merely a creature of instincts; neither is the difference to be found in the fact that unlike the animal, man is subject to the anxieties that are produced by social stress, for of all created forms, man alone is capable of determining his life for good or for evil. This is the real issue in life. In all that he does, therefore, man is faced with the question of values; and not until he has determined this question in relation to self, that is, not until man has found a satisfactory answer to the existential question of what is the purpose of human existence, can he be free from anxiety, which according to some medical authorities, is the number one destroyer of men.

By anxiety here we are not speaking of that which the Writings refer to as "the cares of this world." These are the normal problems of human existence. What we refer to is the neurotic anxiety that stems from the fear of that which cannot be rationally grasped. Being what he is, that is, a reflective being, man fears the unknown; and in an age which has lost contact with God, an age which has lost any real sense of purpose in human existence, it is no Render that men are possessed by an unreasoning concern for self. The inevitable result is confusion, mental disturbance, a basic sense of insecurity, and break down of moral and spiritual values. As one observer of the social scene has said: even if there were no God, man should live and act as if there were. And as another has suggested: human reason alone cannot answer all of mans questions. It cannot provide what he so desperately needs, namely, order and purpose in the universe. In his effort to provide substitute deities, man has turned to history, to the state, and to the psychiatrists couch. But in the end they all lead back to the nearly unbearable message that man is alone in the universe, subject only to the forces of evolution and responsible only to himself.

But the truth is that man is not alone. There is a God. This is the thesis of all Divine revelation. But because His existence is not demonstrable to sense experience, many say that He is a myth. Yet in so doing they destroy the authority that underlies all moral order, and attribute what is good to man himself. In their attack upon Christian ethics the proponents of the new thought insist that there is no such thing as evil in the Scriptural sense. How, they ask, can man sin against a God whose existence is a matter of subjective opinion rather than of demonstrable fact? Let us free ourselves, therefore, of the guilt complex that is implicit in religion, and release the creative energies that are inherent in self. Selfishness, it is claimed, is a good thing when directed to creative activities from which the state, as well as the individual, may benefit. Indeed, they argue that it is men, not God, who are actively engaged in the creative process. It is man, not God, who has lifted the race out of primitive savagery. Does it not follow from this that all moral and social problems are merely problems of vitality; and if true morality lies in the creativeness of the individual, then is not the purpose of morality to be found in the perfection of ones self? It is a closely reasoned argument. But who created the man who is capable of all this creative activity? Are we to believe, as implied by the advocates of the new morality, that he is the chance product of the blind forces of physical energy?

We believe, therefore, in an ordered universe, and we hold that where there is order there is a purpose. Hence we read in the work, The Divine Love and Wisdom: "Those who believe in a Divine operation in all the details of nature are able by ... many things they see in nature to confirm themselves in favor of the Divine, as fully as others confirm themselves in favor of nature, yea, more fully. For those who confirm themselves in favor of the Divine give attention to the wonders which are displayed in the production both of... [vegetables] and animals ... how out of a little seed cast into the ground there goes forth a root, and by means of the root a stem, and branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits in succession, even to new seeds; just as if the seed knew the order of succession, or the process by which it is to renew itself. Can any reasonable person think that the sun, which is ... [pure] fire, has this knowledge, or that it is able to ... effect these results ... Any man of elevated reason ... [must conclude] that they come from Him who has infinite ... [wisdom] ... But those who do not acknowledge the Divine do not see or think this because they do not wish to; thus they sink their rational into the sensual, which draws all its ideas from the [light] which is proper to the bodily senses and which confirms their illusions, saying, Do you not see the sun effecting these things by its heat and light? What is a thing that you do not see? Is it anything? (DLW 351) And how "can anything natural regard use as an end and dispose uses into series and forms? No one can do this unless he be wise; and no one but God, whose wisdom is infinite, can so give order and form to the universe" (DLW 356). "Therefore let every one beware of confirmations in favor of nature: let him confirm himself in favor of the Divine, [for] there is no lack of... [means]" (DLW 357).

But we are not concerned here with arguments in favor of God or against God. As to this we are already convinced. But we are concerned with the pseudo-intellectualism of an age which subverts what is of moral, social and spiritual value. Like the serpent in the garden of Eden who assured the woman that the fruit of the tree that stood in the midst of the garden was good, modern intellectualism seeks to substitute human reason for faith in the determination of what is good. Did he not say unto her, "In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing [both] good and evil"? (Genesis 3:5) By the woman is represented mans proprium; that is, what is mans own. That which is spoken of here is mans natural loves and affections, which taken together constitute the life or love of self. The appearance is that these loves are good, for so it seems to man. Hence the appeal of those philosophies of life which confirm man in this appearance. But the truth is that the love of self is not good, not unless it is subordinated to the good or use it is intended to serve. This good is the good of use, which is from the Lord alone; but if it is to be seen and acknowledged, man must approach the Lord through His Word.

What, then, is the purpose of New Church education? Is it not to dispose the thoughts and affections of the child to the Lord? If this be bias it is a good bias, for our purpose is to enable the child to perceive that which is good. That is the reason we have listed among our objectives, the affection of truth, that is, a love of the Word; for as the Psalmist said, "Thy law is the truth" (Psalm 119:142). Yet the truth of the Word cannot be rationally understood apart from the spiritual sense, that is, apart from the doctrine of use as revealed in the Writings. It is through the doctrine of use that the truth is seen in relation to life; and it is through the doctrine of use that man is enabled to perceive the meaning and purpose of life. If, then, from being natural, man is to become spiritual, he must come to perceive that what is of value in life is determined by use. The doctrine of use, therefore, opens to man an entirely new perspective; that is, one in which all things are valued according to use. This applies to marriage, to friendship, to the love of ones
country, to our moral obligations and our social responsibilities, to the care and education of children, to our daily decisions, to the curriculum of our schools, to the things we acquire, to our recreational interests, and to every other aspect of life. In the determination of good there is but one question, What is its use? In this, and in no other way, can man arrive at a true sense of values.

As already considered, therefore, by the spiritual man we do not have reference to the man who withdraws from life for the sake of his soul, but to the man who accepts the challenge of life as presented to him through the needs of others. Let us not abstract the idea of use to the point that it becomes indefinable. Let us think of it in terms of those opportunities which the Lord has provided whereby we may give what is of value to others. As parents and teachers we should have no difficulty in understanding this. Think of the countless opportunities for use that are inherent in parenthood and in the teaching profession. In the instruction of children we not only open the way in which the individual may become a useful member of society, but we also serve as the means whereby the uses of society may be continually perfected, for it is by means of knowledges that man becomes man, that is, an effective form of use. But as noted, knowledges are only means, and he who confuses the means with the end does not become man in the spiritual meaning of the word, for man is not man from his understanding but only by means of his understanding; every man is what he wills. It is, then, to the will of man that New Church education is addressed. While this is effected through the understanding, it is spiritually fruitless unless the heart is touched. Hence the teaching of the Writings that since the states or loves of mans life are to be so much changed, it cannot be otherwise than "that he is long kept in a kind of mediate good" (AC 4063).

Man is not born into the love of good, but into the love of self. In all that he does his natural inclination is to self. Yet there is one love with every man by means of which he may be led out of self into the delight of use. This love is the affection of truth. It first manifests itself as the delight which the child finds in learning; and if, as with the child, this love is innocent, it is readily directed to the Lord through the teachings of the Word. This is the origin of all spiritual values; and in so far as the Word is loved or valued, the way is opened whereby through the perception of what is true, man may come into the perception of good. The primary function of the New Church school, therefore, is to teach the Word. We know of no other way in which the child may be introduced progressively into a true sense of values.

But instruction from the Word involves more than a knowledge of the Word. Unless that which is taught in the hours devoted to religious instruction is applied to the curriculum as a whole, it cannot be said that we have a New Church school. In the teaching of the arts, the sciences and the humanities, we are also concerned with values. This is a matter of interpretation; that is, a question of how the knowledges which comprise the curriculum are to be explained and evaluated. Here, as in the religion class, our guiding principle should be the doctrine of use. The reason for this is that it is this doctrine which serves as the means whereby all other doctrines of the church are related, and in which their application to life may be seen. The application of the doctrine of use to the curriculum, therefore, will be the subject of our concluding lecture.

 V. THE CURRICULUM

Except for a few passing references to the sciences into which youth is initiated in schools, nothing is said in the Writings concerning the curriculum, yet much is said concerning the nature and function of those knowledges of which the curriculum consists; for we are told that it is by means of knowledges that man becomes man (DP 335). The evidence of this lies in the fact that if man had no knowledge of anything he would not be a man. Thus at birth, man is not yet man, but a being capable of becoming man. That is why we have identified the educational process with the humanizing process, for it is by means of instruction that man puts on that which is human. The essential human, or that which in essence is human, is good and truth; and in so far as by means of knowledges man comes into the perception of truth, he can, if he will, be led into the perception of good. Education, therefore, is basic to all human development. The learning process, which begins in earliest childhood is, or should be, a continuing process, for by this means man is perfected as to his understanding, and as his understanding is formed and perfected his capacity for usefulness is increased.

It is, then, with mans ability to be of use that we as educators are primarily concerned. It is a self-evident truth that knowledge is not an end in itself, for "what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) In other words, of what use is a man who acquires much knowledge and at the same time fails to apply what he has learned to what is of use? In the formation of the curriculum, therefore, our guiding principle must be the purpose or the use which we have in mind. We are not speaking here of occupations; this is the function of professional and technical schools. What we are concerned with is a general education which should precede professional and technical training. In this, therefore, we concur with those who believe in the liberal tradition in education; that is, with those who place emphasis upon the importance of the arts, the humanities and the sciences, for it is through these fields of learning that what is most meaningful in human experience is passed down from generation to generation. But education is not merely a matter of learning. It is also a matter of interpretation. In other words how are the facts of science of history, and the laws of mathematics to be understood? Do they testify to the existence of a God who is Order itself, and who created man in His own image and likeness, or do they discredit the foundations of faith? These are not idle questions but questions which sooner or later, every man must resolve for himself. But because we believe in a God who in essence is good and truth, that is, a Divine Man, we believe that the knowledges which constitute the curriculum are, in effect, forms of truth; that is, forms in which, as in mirrors, truths may be seen (AC 5201). Knowledges are not mere abstractions. They are forms of truth, that is, the form which truth takes when it is presented to the sight of the understanding.

In the formulation of the curriculum, however, we must distinguish between two kinds of knowledges: those which are derived from revelation and are generally referred to in the Writings as knowledges of truth, and those which man abstracts from experience and are referred to as the sciences. Hence the well-known teaching of the Writings that there are two foundations of truth, one from the Word, and the other from nature, and that these two foundations agree with each other when they are properly understood (SD 5709); also the teaching that since the sciences have closed up the understanding, they may also open it up, and it is opened in so far as man is in the perception of good (ibid). To perceive what is good is to perceive what is of use; and he who perceives the real use of the sciences sees in them a confirmation of the truth that there is a God, and that He is one. For after all, what is science but the logic of nature, and sound logic does not admit to the assumption that nature is the cause of itself.

There are, then, two principles which can be adopted in the formation of a curriculum. The one is spoken of in the Writings as the affirmative principle, and the other as the negative principle. The one is to believe that there is a God, that there is a Divine purpose in creation, that this purpose is revealed in the Word and reflected in the order of creation. The other is to deny these things, and say, I will not believe unless these things can be demonstrated beyond any reason for doubt through sense experience. As stated in the Writings: "Those think from a negative principle who believe nothing unless they are convinced ... by sensuous things. But the fact is that they never believe; and indeed they would not believe if they were to be convinced by the bodily senses ... for they would always form new reasonings against ... [the things of faith], and would thus end by completely extinguishing all faith.... But those who are in the affirmative ... are continually being confirmed and ... enlightened [rational, scientific, and sensuous things], for man has light from no other source than ... [through rational and scientific things]" (AC 2588).

It is, then, through or by means of, rational and scientific things, that man is enlightened. There is no other way in which he can come into the perception of truth. Hence the teaching that the knowledge of a thing must precede the perception of it (AC 5649, 1802). Knowledges serve the understanding as a plane of objects which enable the mind to formulate what is true; that is, to see what is true in a form that is comprehensible. That is why the study of the sciences is urged in the Writings; for it said that "to rational wisdom pertain all the [sciences] into which youths are initiated in schools ... [such] as philosophy, physics, geometry, mechanics, chemistry, astronomy, jurisprudence, politics, ethics, history, and many others through which as by doors, they enter into things rational whereby rational wisdom is formed" (CL 163). It is to be noted here, however, that in this series from the Writings an important distinction is made between two kinds of wisdom; namely, rational wisdom and moral wisdom. It is important because it distinguishes between the wisdom that man acquires by way of the sciences and the wisdom of life, for it is said: "The things with man which pertain to moral wisdom are all the moral virtues, which have regard to life ... and also all the spiritual virtues which how ... into the moral virtues" (CL 164). What we seek, therefore, is not merely rational wisdom, but also moral and spiritual wisdom; that is, the wisdom of life. Hence the further teaching of the Writings that "it is believed in the world that those who have much knowledge ... have a more interior ... vision of truth than others, that is, are more intelligent and wise. [But this is not so] ... True intelligence and wisdom is seeing and perceiving what is true and good, and thereby what is false and evil, and clearly distinguishing between them, and this from an interior intuition and perception" (HH 351).

But from whence comes this interior intuition and perception? It does not come from man himself. The perception of what is good and true is with man from the Lord. Hence the familiar teaching of the Writings that "there is a universal influx from God into the souls of men of the truth that there is a God, and that He is one" (TCR 9). But as man cannot perceive what he does not yet know, instruction is necessary, and this instruction must be from the Word. If, then, man is to have faith in God, he must be instructed in the Word. There is no other way in which he can form any true idea of Him. Thus it is that in No. 1461 of the Arcana Coelestia, where the subject is the instruction of the external or natural man, the statement is made that "the knowledges must be from the Word." This does not refer to the knowledges in which the sciences consist; that is, to those from whence comes rational wisdom, but to those knowledges from whence comes metal and spiritual wisdom. It would seem, therefore, that we have a dichotomy within our curriculum, that is, two sources of truth. To many this seems to be an untenable position in that they do not perceive the relation between spiritual and natural truths. To the modern mind, science is the only source of truth, but what they fail to recognize is that natural truths are but manifestations of spiritual truths, and that the relationship between them is one of mutual correspondence. Even as the hand responds to the will, or the eye to light, so that which is spiritual corresponds to that which is natural, and that which is natural to that which is spiritual; and unless this relationship is seen and understood, the mind cannot grasp what is meant in the Writings when it is said that there are two foundations of truth (SD 5709).

We hold, therefore, that there is no real discrepancy between science and faith, but that when rightly interpreted, the sciences support and perfect mans understanding of an all-wise Creator who is the ultimate source of all created things. We recognize, however, that this is a matter of interpretation, for there is no final evidence of this, If there were, man would be compelled to faith, and it is a law of the Divine Providence that "man should not be compelled by external means to think and will, and thus to believe and love, the things of religion" (DP 129). But it is also a law of the Divine Providence "that man should be led and taught by the Lord ... by means of the Word ... and this to all appearance as if by himself" (DP 154). In other words, man is to be free to believe what he wills. He is free to believe in God, or to reject Him, as he wills; yet since nature cannot be the cause of itself, it would seem that reason would incline to faith, for where there is order it is reasonable to assume that there is intelligence, and that where there is intelligence there is a purpose. But because many at this day are not willing to admit to a purpose in creation, they seek to discredit the Word as a reliable source of truth; and they support their denial by casting doubt upon the credibility of any evidence save that of the five senses. Hence they say, in disbelief, "Where is thy God?" (Psalm 42:3)

In a deeply troubled world which seems to have lost contact with any definitive source of moral and spiritual values, this question is pertinent. Indeed, it would seem that if there were ever a time when men stood in need of faith it is at the present day. But the question is, what does this have to do with the curriculum? From our point of view it has a great deal to do with it. An effective curriculum must have a unifying principle. If it does not, knowledge becomes increasingly compartmentalized, and there is no definable relationship between one field of learning and another. In this, the medieval university was superior to the educational systems of the present day. Here was an ordered curriculum in which all fields of learning were ordered by theology. It was the knowledge of God which gave meaning and sequence to all that was taught. Yet in an age which has substituted science for religion as the only reliable source of truth, who would subscribe to the thesis that the knowledge of God is an acceptable principle upon which to build the curriculum? It is in this that the Academy is exposed to the charge of medievalism, of living in a world that has long since passed away. It is true that the curriculum we envisage is ordered by theology. This has been the vision of the Academy for almost one hundred years. But the theology to which we subscribe is not that of the former Christian Church. It is based upon a new concept of God. In this, the educational system we have devised looks to the future and not to the past that is, to the day when men in increasing numbers will come to perceive both the function and the limitations of science in the search for truth.

Sooner or later men must return to the idea of God; that is, to the idea of God who is good. The reason for this is that without the idea of God the human mind has no point of reference by which man may determine what is good. Apart from the idea of God everything becomes a matter of human opinion, and as every one is entitled to his own opinion, good and evil, truth and falsity become purely relative concepts; that is, concepts which are relative to the purposes and interests of the individual. The result of this is that in many circles we may no longer speak of the good or the evil man. There are no morals, no clearly defined standards of acceptable conduct, no criterion by which we can judge the true value or worth of anything. Good is whatever is pleasing to self. Truth is whatever supports what we believe to be good. Freedom is to act however we will. As for principles, the only principle is that there are no principles. All that there is today is expediency; that is, that which will work to our best interests at the moment. This is the logic of Godlessness.

But we have no difficulty in understanding why so many at this day have lost faith in God. The reason is because men can form no rational or comprehensible idea of Him. We say that God is Man, but men say, How can God be man? But our concept of God is not confined to a being who possesses a human figure, or to one whose personality is revealed through the person of Jesus Christ. While these concepts are basic, in that apart from the idea of figure and person we cannot form any idea of God, still we are not to think of Him from His person, but from His essence, and from this of His person; that is, from what God in essence is (AR 611). In essence God is Good and Truth. This is the supreme testimony of the Writings concerning Him. But the understandable reaction of man is, Who was Emanuel Swedenborg that he should speak for God? However, we do not believe in the Writings because of Swedenborgs claim to Divine inspiration. We believe in the Writings because we believe they are true, and we believe they are true because we perceive in them that which is good, for what is truth but good appearing; that is, Good or God, as He appears to the sight of the mind? The fact is, we do not believe that man can see that which is good from himself, but we do believe man can see that which is good from the acknowledgment that there is a God and that He is good.

It is the faith of the New Church, therefore, that the beginning of wisdom is the acknowledgment of the Lord, and that the end of wisdom is a life according to His Word. Thus we believe that a knowledge of the Word is the first essential of the educational process, for it is from the Word that we derive the values to which we subscribe. In other words, it is by means of doctrine from the Word that we evaluate all things, each according to the use it performs. Hence the teaching that man is not man because he is endowed with a human figure, but because he is a being capable of doing that which is good; that the value of a thing is not its monetary worth, but the use which it serves; that the neighbor is not to be loved on account of his person, but on account of the good that is in the person; that the meaning and purpose of human existence is not found in the perfection of self, but in the subordination of self to the use that self is intended to serve. But we need not multiply illustrations. That which applies here also applies to the curriculum. The governing doctrine in the formulation of a New Church curriculum is the doctrine of use. Here we have a primary principle that relates to every field of learning, and which serves as a meaningful basis for the ordering of the curriculum. When put in the form of a question it goes to the very heart of the subjects taught, requiring of each a convincing reason for its place in the curriculum. In other words, what is the real use of history, of literature, of the arts, of the sciences, and of the skills which we teach? This is not an oversimplification of the problem. It is the core of all our educational efforts.

In inquiring into the use of a subject we have in mind more than is involved in its social, cultural and intellectual content. For example, let us take the study of history. Here is a subject which is a must in any curriculum, for without the knowledge of history, man would have no perspective and therefore no ability to make sound social judgments. In one sense, each of us is a product of the past, not only of our own past, but also of our cultural and intellectual heritage. The understanding of this heritage is of prime importance, not only to the individual but to society as a whole. Without it we would have no cultural consciousness, no appreciation of the values that are implicit in the study of history. But we believe that there is more to history than this, for we believe that when studied in the light of the Writings, history attests to the existence of a Divine Being who governs man by means of spiritual laws which are designed to preserve mans spiritual freedom; for without spiritual freedom man would have no freedom in civil, moral or natural things (TCR 482). With Victor Hugo, therefore, we do not believe that the course of history was changed merely because a scout failed to observe a sunken road that lay in the path of a cavalry charge on the morning of the battle of Waterloo. In other words, we do not believe that the ultimate outcome of history is the product of chance. We believe that there are spiritual laws, even as there are natural laws, and that it is by means of spiritual laws that the Lord provides for mans freedom. Thus, when in the exercise of the freedom men do what is evil, that is, when they seek to deprive others of their freedom, a judgment is inevitable. It is true that the judgment may be delayed in order that the evil may be exposed. Nevertheless in time the evil brings upon itself the judgment of truth. In other words, we hold that history is spiritually as well as culturally and intellectually significant, for like the natural sciences, when viewed in the light of the affirmative principle it testifies to a Divine purpose in creation.

The important difference is that the affirmative principle can serve as a basis for the ordering of the curriculum, whereas the negative principle cannot. The reason for this is that the negative principle is not a principle at all. It is a negation, and a negation cannot serve as a basis for positive thinking. Let us take the assumption that as far as we know we live in a world without purpose, and that if there is a purpose, science will reveal it to us. But the fact is that science does not have a purpose. It is men who have purposes. And as we firmly believe that God is Divine Man, we assume that He also has a purpose. After all, what is science but a method; that is, a means whereby man may achieve certain purposes? If one of these is the search for truth, science has much to offer. But it cannot tell us what man is, why he is, nor what he is destined to become. It is in recognition of this that many scholars have held that in our search for truth concerning man our only court of appeal is human reason.

But the outcome of reason is always dependent upon the postulate which is assumed. The human mind finds no difficulty in confirming that which in the first instance it assumes to be true. As a matter of fact, the true function of reason is to confirm that which is true, not to determine it, for the truth is Prior to reason. All that the human mind can do is to discover it for itself. The real question, then, is, what is the truth? We hold that truths are the laws of Divine order, which apply not only to physical creation, and are manifested as the laws of nature, but also that they apply to man, who is a spiritual creation, and that it is these laws of the spirit that are revealed in the spiritual sense of the Word. Yet it is asked, How do you know that these laws are true? There is only one answer to this: we know it because when revealed to the sight of the understanding these laws testify to what is good.

In the formation of the curriculum, therefore, we are convinced that our guiding principle should be the doctrine of use, for to see the use of a thing is to see its good. Take, for example, the study of language. Surely no one would question the use of language. The ability to speak, to read and to write is fundamental. If man did not know the meaning of words he could not be educated, but would remain in the ignorance into which he is born. It is by means of words that man puts on what is human; that is, those ideas which take form as knowledges in his mind. But the real use of language is that there may be a pathway of communication between God and man, for it is by means of the Word, and not apart from the Word, that the Lord is revealed to man. Does this not also point up the importance of those languages in which the Word was written? At a time when these languages ate rapidly disappearing from the curriculum of other schools, is there not a good and useful reason why they should be fostered and preserved in the Academy? And what about the language of other peoples and nations? Quite apart from the international situation, we have reason to encourage the more gifted among our student body in the mastery of these tongues. There is a critical need for those who are capable of translating the Writings into other languages. How else can the New Church become a universal church? But, it is argued, why should the student who in all probability will never gain sufficient mastery of a language to use it, spend time that could well be spent on other things. If for no other reason, because through the study of another language, especially Latin, he will learn much about his own language that he could not learn in any other way.

But I am not here as an advocate for the language department, but as an advocate for the evaluation of the curriculum in terms of use. Not only is it a direct and meaningful approach, but it opens the way to a perception of those moral, social and spiritual values which are implicit within the curriculum. In adopting this approach, our first question is, what is man? The answer given in the Writings is that man is a form of truth from good; that is, a being who is endowed with understanding from the delight that he finds in learning. But knowledge is not wisdom. If man is to become wise, the knowledges which he acquires must be applied to that which is good in life. By the good of life we mean the uses of life, that is, those uses which man is intended to perform. But as these uses cannot be seen for what they are apart from the acknowledgment of Him who is the source of good, the primary purpose of the curriculum is to enable man to see and acknowledge the Lord as He is now revealed in His own Divine Human; that is, in the spiritual sense of "the Word which is from Him, and is Himself" (TCR 776).

We think of the Lord as a Divine Man, but to love the Lord is to love those uses which are from Him. Hence the statement in the word, Divine Love: "To love the Lord means to do uses from Him ... for the reason that all ... good uses that man does are from the Lord ... No one can love the Lord in any other way; for uses, which are goods, are from the Lord, and consequently are Divine; yea they are the Lord Himself with man" Divine Love XIII: 1). Here is a new concept of use, a concept that gives meaning and purpose to the knowledges which constitute the curriculum. It is by means of knowledges that man becomes man, that is, a living form capable of performing uses. The greater the knowledge, the greater is mans capacity for being of use. Yet it does not matter how learned a man may be unless in simplicity of heart he wills to be of use; that is, unless he wills to be led by the Lord in the doing of those goods which are of use. As Swedenborg observed at the outset of his philosophical works: "He who thinks himself wise ... [while] his wisdom does not teach him to acknowledge the Divine ... that is, he who thinks he can be wise without a knowledge of, and a veneration for, the Deity, has no wisdom at all" (Principia, Tansley ed., p. 38).

It is, then, not knowledge which we seek, but the wisdom of life; and although the knowledge of a thing must precede the perception of it, it is in the perception of use that wisdom consists. Thus, in teaching any subject, our first question, is, what is the use of that which we teach? Wherein does it contribute to mans understanding of Him who is Use itself? In what way does it contribute to mans understanding of himself? Wherein does it serve as a means whereby man may be of use to others? Of what real value is it when measured in terms of usefulness? How is it related to the other subjects of the curriculum through the use which it serves? What is its relative value when compared to other fields of learning? Is it, like the study of language and the sciences, basic to our purpose? These and similar questions are not mere mental exercises. They go to the very heart of that which we are trying to do.

Let us take another illustration of what we have in mind; namely, the social studies. Here our subject is man. But how can we talk intelligently about man unless we know what man is? According to modern texts, he is a superior animal. But man is not an animal. If he were we would not be discussing the curriculum today. Instead, we would be ranging the fields and the forests in search of food and shelter. But man does not live by bread alone. He has other needs which are needs of the spirit or mind, and it is in the fulfillment of these needs that instruction is needful. Neither can the mind of man be satisfied by a knowledge of his physical environment. Important as this is in the total concept of man, it is not to be assumed that man, although influenced by, is the product of his physical environment. There is far more to man than can ever be accounted for by nature. Thus in teaching the social studies we hold as a premise that man is a spiritual being; that is, a being capable of living a civil, a moral, a social and spiritual life. What is more, we hold that the individual man is a being who is intended to serve as an instrumentality of use in the Grand Man of society. Further, we hold that the individual is to society what the cells are to the body, in that each individual is endowed with some peculiar ability to contribute to the good of the whole. Here the doctrine of correspondence applies; also the doctrine of influx, of degrees, and of forms. As Swedenborg notes in the Preface to the Rational Psychology; without a knowledge of these doctrines, man cannot possibly attain to a knowledge of the soul; that is, to a knowledge of what man really is. It is in the light and understanding of such doctrines as these that the study of man, or the social studies, take on significance.

We are reminded here of the doubt expressed by a leading educator concerning the value of what we have referred to here as the social studies, but which are frequently referred to by their proponents as the social sciences. The implication here is that the study of man, like the analysis of the atom, is a science. Concerning this the writer says: "Up to now I have said nothing about the social sciences; but this is for another reason. I have some grave doubts about the real value of that swelling department. Possibly under the very pressure of its very name--social science--this branch of inquiry has displayed a near fatal tendency to emulate the physical sciences; it has come forward with a sharply reduced concept of man; that is, with man cut down to something that denies his whole nature; and it is making proposals for the renovation of society which reflect these biases" (Richard M. Weaver, Address to the Metropolitan Area Industrial Conference, Chicago, October 25, 1982). Valuable as the sciences are in their own field of investigation, they cannot tell us what man is, nor what the purpose in human existence may be. We reject, therefore, those who come before us claiming the authority of science in the solution of those political, social, and ecumenical problems which beset man.

By a similar line of reasoning, men also reject the authority of Divine revelation. This is understandable in an age when the spiritual sense of the Word is not understood. It is not that the Writings offer us some social panacea which will cure the ills of the world, but they do open the way to the understanding of those basic questions that must be answered before man can proceed with intelligence to the solution of those problems which stand in the way of true social progress. Who is God? What is man? What is good? What is truth? These are questions which cannot be dismissed; and it is our firm conviction that apart from Divine revelation, man cannot form any true idea of these basic concepts. According to the Writings, God is Use itself, man is a form of use, good with man is the love of use, and truth with man is the acknowledgment and perception of use in the understanding. In other words, all that is essential in life has its origin in use and relates to use, and it is from the doctrine of use that the curriculum should be ordered and formed.

I would conclude this series of lectures, therefore, by quoting from the lesson that was read at the outset of these meetings of the Educational Council, as follows: "[It may be evident to every one] ... if he pays attention, that in itself the ... knowledge of knowledges is nothing but a means whereby ... man may become rational, and thence spiritual, and at last celestial; and that by means of the knowledges his external man may be adjoined ... [with] his internal; and [that] when this is done he is in the use itself. The internal man regards nothing but the use. For the sake of this end also, the Lord insinuates the delight that childhood and youth perceives in ... knowledges. But when a man begins to make his delight consist in ... knowledge alone, it is a bodily cupidity which carries him away, and in proportion as he is thus carried away ... in the same proportion he removes himself from what is celestial, and in the same proportion do the ... knowledges close themselves toward the Lord and become material. But in proportion as the knowledges are learned with the end of use--as for the sake of human society, for the sake of the Lords church on earth, for the sake of the Lords kingdom in the heavens, and still more for the Lords own sake--the more are they opened toward Him. On this account also the angels, who are in the ... knowledge of all knowledges, and indeed to such a degree that scarcely one part in ten thousand can be presented to the full apprehension of man, yet esteem such knowledge as nothing in comparison with use" (AC 1472). I hold, therefore, that the doctrine of use is that doctrine which, when rightly understood, will give unity, meaning, and purpose to the curriculum of these schools.