Teilhard de Chardin and Christian Schools BY PETER M . COLLINS

In his small treatise, How Z Believe, Teilhard de Chardin makes no explicit reference to education. However, he indirectly might be saying a great deal regarding the nature of Christian institutions of learning and their distinctive contributions to American society. To investigate this possibility is the basic purpose of this essay. No attempt will be made to analyze thoroughly the text of HOW Z Believe or to clarify and dispute objections raised against the teaching therein. However, a brief summary of its methodology and a portion of its content is in order.

The four stages of &re Teilhard’s faith are epitomized in his following declaration: I believe that the universe is an evolution. I believe that evolution proceeds towards spirit. I believe that spirit is fully realized in a form ofpersonality. I believe that the supremely personal is the Universal Christ.’

The renowned Jesuit scholar’s faith in the WorId, in Spiril, in Immortality, and in Personality as developed in How I Believe will be comprehended best in liglit of the author’s purpose and method in writing.

In this volume, Teilhard attempts to specify the reasons for his Christian faith, explaining the shades of emphasis of that faith and its limitations or difficulties.’ He intends to employ a procedure which, hopcfully, will enable him to truly teach his readers the value of spirit, God, and personality.3

In seeking to communicate to believers the vision of a Universe in no way impersonal and closed: the author necessarily directs his attention to teaching methodology. He is concerned not only with the belief which lie himself has already appropriated, but with the specific conditions of his non-Christian listeners. Placing himself on the same level as the unbelievers whom he hopes to lead to the Christian faith, he proceeds in a manner the converse of that which he would naturally follow from his own point of view. His initial statements regarding the first stage, faith in the world, are indicative of this method:

Peter Collins is an associate professor in the School of Education at Marquctte University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

‘Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, How I Believe, translated by Rcne Hague (N . Y . : Harper & Row, Puhtishers, Perennial Library, 1969), p. 3. The third helief was later revised by its author as follows: “ I believe that in man, spirit Is fully realized in person.” ((bid.)

albid., p. 10. Henri DeLubac, Teilhard de Chardin: The Man and His Meaning, translatcd by Renc Hague

(N. Y.: The New American Library, Inc., Mentor-Omega book, 1967), p. 130. ’ [bid.

267

268 EDUCATIONAL TlIEORY

If, as a result of some interior revolution, I were t o lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world {its values, its infallibility and its goodness)-that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe. I t is by this faith that I live. And it is t o this faith, 1 feel, that a t the moment of death, rising above all doubts, I shall surrender myself.’

In other words, Teilhard does not assume that which he sets out t o prove. Rather, he dismisses first his faith in Christ, then his faith in a personal God, and lastly even his faith in Spirit (that is, in the spirituality and immateriality of the SOU^).^ He asks the unbeliever, a t the outset, to consider that which appears to represent a common basis for bo th parties- namely, faith in the World. According t o DeLubac,

This initial faith, as i t unfolds its implications, leads ‘successively’ t o faith in the Spirit-then t o faith in a personal God-and finally to the threshold of faith in the personal God revealed in Jesus Christ and adored in the Catholic Church. This, let us emphasize once more, is the whole purpose of How I Believe, its whole plan. PCre Teilhard writes simply and solely t o arrive at that conclusion. We see in it the stages of his apologetic demonstration. This begins immediately, as the second sub-heading indicates: Faith in the Spirit followed shortly by Faith in Immortality, then by Faith in Personality, until we come to Faith in C h r i ~ t . ~

Using faith in the world as his “fundamental adherence” and starting point, the author reconstructs, step by step, the framework of his belief.

One other point remains to be mentioned regarding methodology: How [Believe, as the title indicates, was written from an existential, personal point o f view. He called it a “personal confession” and confided t o a friend his feeling of having succeeded in expressing his personal reasons for believing.’ However, due t o the universality of the nature of man. this treatise can by no means be considered a purely subjective statement-Teilhard indicates the same in the following passage:

Nevertheless, it remains true that, expressed in forms that are infinitely varied, there can ultimately be only one psychological axis of spiritual progress toward God. Even if they are expressed in completely subjective terms, many of the things I am going t o say must necessarily have th$ir equivalents in temperaments different from my own-and they must raise a sympathetic echo in them. Man is essentially the same in all of us, and we have only t o look sufficiently deeply within ourselves to find a common substratum of aspirations and illumination. To put it in a way which already expresses my fundamental thesis: ‘It is through that which is most incommunicably personal in us that we make contact with the universal.”

Besides clarifying in this conclusion t o the “Foreword” of his book the individualized and universal dimensions of his views, he points out a highly significant principle regarding the nature of man-the human person has an essential nature which is universal, while, a t the same time, retaining his status as an individual. Both the universality and the individuality are real; although distinct, these two features of man are

Teilhard de Chardin, pp. 19-20. DeLubac, p. 134. Ibid., p. 136.

‘ lb id . . p. 139. $Teilhard de Chardin, pp. 11-12.

CHARDIN AND CHRlSTIAN SCHOOLS 2 69

inseparable. To further analyze each would help us understand in what ways and to what extent human persons are the same and yet different-a very important consideration for all teachers a t every level of education.

Before encountering the four levels of faith described by Teilhard. the question of the nature of faith in general arises. He defines faith (on the strictly psychological plane, to which he confines himselo as “any adherence of our intelligence to a general view of the universe.”’ Belief consists in a dynamic intellectual synthesis whose origin is inapprehensible .

What does Teilhard mean by “faith in the World?” What is this “World” in which human beings quite easily place their faith? I t definitely is not the world of appearances, that is, an aggregate of things,’ ’ which, as such, is irremediably superficial.’2 Rather, faith in the world, as he experiences i t in its deepest form, is seen in a dynamic sense of universal relationships of interdependence.I3 The wholeness of the world is a key concept:’4 “above the complete linked body or ensemble of beings and phenomenon, 1 can glimpse, or sense, a global reality whose condition is that of being more necessary, more consistent, richer and more certain in its ways, than any of the particular things it embraces.”’ Pluralism or monism is not a matter of taste or temperament-one who does not “see” the whole, does not “see.”

Although this vision of the World is vague to Teilhard at this stage (a very important point), it appears to found the edifice of his belief.I6 He calls it a “primordial i n t~ i t i on , ”~’ asserting that“. . . man, in virtue .of his very condition of ‘being in the world,’ possesses a special sense which shows him, in a more or less ill-defined way, the whole of which he forms a part.”18 The result is a surrender of self to a poorly defined faith in a unified, infallible world, wherever it might lead.’

Thus far the author has not concerned himself with such questions as whether the world is static or dynamic, material or spiritual. Recalling his method in approaching the unbeliever, and the conclusion he has already drawn for himself, helps to explain the vacuum at this point as well as the “ill-defined faith” to which he refers.

According to Teilhard, the unity of the world is naturally dynamic or evolutive, a universal whole defined by a movement toward spirit” (the second level of faith). As a historian as well as a philosopher, the Jesuit priest-scholar contends that a universal spiritual evolution is the only one which leaves a place for man.’ ’ In his own words,

An evolution which is material in basis leaves no place for man, for all the accumulation of determinisms still cannot provide even a shadow of freedom. On the other hand, an evolution with a basis of spirit preserves all the laws noted by physics, while at the same time leading directly to thought; for a mass of elementary freedoms, subject to no order, amounts t o a determinism. Such an evolution preserves both man and nature: and must therefore be accepted.’2

IOIbid., p. 13. I ’ Ibid., p. 22. l 2 DeLubac. pp. 143-144. I s Teilhard de Chardin, p. 20 “Ibid. , p. 21. I s Ibid., p. 22. “Ibid . , p. 24. ‘‘I Ibid. ” [b id . , p . 25. In Ibid., p. 26. 2DIbid., p. 29. “ Ib id . , pp. 29 31.

Ibid., p. 3 3 .

270 EDUCATIONAL THEORY

This second stage, faith in Spirit, is concluded with three principle articles of that faith: 1) the unity of the world presents itself to one’s experience as the overall ascent toward some continually more spiritual state; 2) spirit originates in, and is a function of,

and 3 ) as a lifelong guide man possesses an infallible biological and moral rule, namely, t o continue t o direct himself “ ‘toward the greater degree of consciousness.’ ”’

Teilhard overcomes the temptation t o stop with his belief in the spiritual evolution of the world because of the meaninglessness of a spirit not immortal.25 His faith in immortality (the third stage of his faith) appears t o him as a consequence and necessary complement of any idea of universal progress. He maintains that the movement which draws the universe, as a whole, toward enhanced freedom or consciousness cannot ever be reversed or reverse itself. This irreversibility (immortality) was originally suggested to him b y the nature of spirit.26 The nature of man is a t stake again:

Man, the more he is man, can give himself only to what he loves; and ultimately he loves only what is indestructible. Multiply t o your heart’s content the extent and duration of progress. Promise the earth a hundred million more years of continued growth. If at the end of that period, it is evident that the whole of consciousness must revert t o zero, without i ts secret essence being garnered anywhere at all, then, I insist, we shall lay down our arms-and mankind will be on strike. The prospect of a total death (and that is a word t o which we should devote much thought if we are to gauge its destructive effect on our souls) will, I warn you, when it has become part of our consciousness, immediately dry u p in us the springs from which our efforts are drawn.2

Teilhard’s own words present an excellent summary of his faith in immortality:

However, if the major premise of my argument is true-if, that is, not by whim but by internal necessity, ‘reflective’ life can proceed only in the direction o f the immortal-then, given the stuge which I am presupposing the evolution of my faith has reached, I am justified in concluding, as 1 have done, that ‘the immortal therefore exists.’ And, indeed, if the world, taken as one whole, is something infallible (first stage); and if, moreover, it movcs toward spirit (second stage); then, it must be capable of providing us with what is essentially necessary to the continuation of such a movement. By this I mean it must provide ahead o f u s an unlimited horizon.’

In introducing the fourth and final stage of his faith-faith in Personality Teilhard relates the fact that, despite the transformation of his initial faith in the world into a faith in the increasing and indestructible spiritualization of the world, an essential element is still missing. He contends that , in view of the prospects of an irreversible future life, the living being must culminate in a personal being in which we will be s u p e i - p e r s o i ~ a l i z e d . ~ ~

How does he justify this new stage? In attempting t o analyze more intensively the spirit of the world, he sees that spirit as a concentration of our individual reflective and affective center, carrying that process always further within it-apparently toward a greater realization, which signifies grealer consciousness. But what does person and personality have t o d o with this process?

23 Ibid., pp. 34-35. 2 4 Ibid., p. 35. 2 6 Ibid., p. 38. 2 6 Ibid. 27 Ibid., pp. 43-44

Ibid., pp. 44-45. 29 Ibid., p. 48.

CHARDIN AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 27 1

‘Personalized’ being, which makes us human, is the highest state in which we are enabled to apprehend the stuff of the world. Carried t o its fullest development, this substance must already contain, t o a supreme degree, all that is most valuable in our perfection. It cannot, therefore, but be ‘super-conscious,’ which means ‘super- personal.’”

As a result, he cannot conceive of an evolutionary process toward spirit which does not culminate in a supreme personality. The cosmos cannot be knit together in or by some thing; that can be accomplished only if the end is some onc3

Teilhard answers the further question of the future of each individual in light of the ultimate consciousness of itself which the universe will attain. Although he exhibits little concern for his personal happiness and de-emphasizes external work of life, he does value what is incommunicable and unique about himself, his personality-“ particular center o f perceptions and love that my life consists in d e ~ e l o p i n g . ” ~ What must be saved in the consummation of the universe is this center itself.33 Thus, we shall inevitably find ourselves personally immortalized in the supreme personality. The recognition of this fusion of the human monad with the universe by super-personalization has brought him to the conclusion of the four stages of faith:

It is at this point that the individual developments of my faith come to a stop and culminate: at a point at which, were I t o lose confidence in all revealed religion, I would still, I believe, be firmly anchored. Stage by stage, my initial faith in the world has taken a definite shape. What was at first a vague intuition of universal unity has become a rational and well-defined awareness of a presence. I know now that I belong t o the world and that I shall return to it, not simply in the ashes of my body, but in all the developed powers of my mind and heart. I can love the world. And since, therefore, I can now distinguish in the cosmos a higher sphere of person and personal relationships, I am beginning t o suspect that appeals and indications of an intellectual nature may well build up around me and have a message for me.

A presence is never dumb.34

The question yet remains, what does all this have to d o with religion and God? What is the relationship between these levels of faith and Christ? Teilhard explains the need t o immerse himself in the great river of religions-the very logic of his progress in faith obliges him to emerge from individualism t o confront the general religious experience of mankind. In his own words,

The only reason that can decide me t o adhere t o a religion must, in short (as follows from the first part of this essay) consist in the harmony of a higher order which exists between that religion and the individual creed t o which the natural evolution of my faith has led me.

Faith in the unity of the world, faith in the existence and faith in the immortality of the spirit which is born from the synthesis of the world-these three faiths, summed u p in the worship of a personal and personalizing center of universal convergence-these, let me say once more, are the terms of that creed. Let us see t o which current I must commit myself if these aspirations are t o find the warmest

Ibid.. pp. 49- 5 0 3 1 Ibid., p. 50. 32 Ibid., p. 52. s3 Ibid., p. 53. 3 4 Ibid., p. 55.

272 EDUCATIONAL THEORY

welcome, are t o he rightly directed, and are to multiply. It is in this that, for me, the proof of religion will c ~ n s i s t . ~

Teilhard completes the dialectic of this treatise with the conclusion to his search for the true religion. From those religions he considers, he chooses Christianity, but not a Christianity opposed t o the world and progress. He stakes his belief in the Universal Christ-“a synthesis of Christ and the U n i v e r ~ e . ” ~ Evolution makes Christ possible by disclosing a world peak, while Christ makes evolution possible by giving meaning and direction t o the world: The very intimate relationship is claiified in the following passage near the end of How I Believe:

the world becomes d ~ v i n e . ~

I shall attain spirit only by bringing out the complete range of the forces of matter. The total Christ is consummated and may be attained only at the term of universal evolution. In him I have found what my being dreamed of: a personalized universe, whose domination personalizes men.3

According t o Teilhard, the only possible conversion of the world, and the only form in which a reIigion of the future can be conceptualized, is a general convergence of religions upon a universal Christ who satisfies them all.40

The significance of the relationship Teilhard sees between God and the world is evident in his principles and methodology. In the preface t o the four stages, he refers t o the roots of his belief as two domains of life ordinarily regarded as a n t a g o n i ~ t i c . ~ ’ He elaborates as follows:

By upbringing and intellectual training, I belong t o the ‘children of heaven’; but by temperament, and by my professional studies, I am a ‘child of the earth.’ Situated thus by life at the heart of two worlds with whose theory, idiom and feelings intimate experience has made me familiar, I have not erected any watertight bulkhead inside myself. On the contrary, I have allowed two apparently conflicting influences full freedom t o reacl upon one another deep within me. And now, at the end of that operation, after thirty years devoted t o the pursuit of interior unity, I have the feeling that a synthesis has been effected naturally between the two currents that claim my allegiance. The one has not destroyed, but has reinforced, the other. Today I believe probably more profoundly than ever in God, and certainly more than ever in the world.4Z

Thus? the dualistic poles of God and the world, apparently antithetical, are, in the final view, most compatible; they are so interrelated that the world cannot be understood without God. The four stages are successive, but they are also cumulative (to put it crudely) in such a way that in reality the first is truly and completely meaningful only in light o f the last. PCre Teilhard is not obliterating the distinction between God and the world; he distinguishes the two consistently. However, in his eyes, they cannot be separated either. Becoming truly human is impossible without God, but it is also a condition of attaining union with God.

35 Ibid., pp. 64-65. 36 Ibid., p. 11. 371bid., p. 80. 38 Ibid., pp. X I -82. 39 Ibid., p. 82. 4 o Ibid., p. 85. ‘I Ibid., p. 10. 421bid., pp. 10-1 I .

CHARDIN AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 273

DeLubac relates this synthesis t o the four stages as follows:

What PBre Teilhard is preparing t o demonstrate t o the unbeliever is that the World, in which both of them, before they even start, believe, in reality presupposes many things which the unbeliever does not yet suspect and would be unwilling t o accept. Pkre Teilhard accordingly, will try t o make him see that, logically, his faith in the World presupposes (or entails) if it is t o appear well founded (and by the same token, if it is t o be transformed) first of all faith in the Spirit then faith in a personal and personalizing God-and perhaps even, finally, faith in Christ, through whom God reveals himself in person.

Thus we continually return to the essential skein of thought, whose unravelling will remove all ambiguity. Already, if we have appreciated the initial position, we can understand how it is that the apologist can say, in language that is necessarily ambiguous because he cannot a t this point refer t o realities whose existence he has not yet established, that the World is ‘in the last analysis’ the first and the only thing in which he believes. The first, in its ‘confused’ and even ‘extremely vague’ form, in as much as it constitutes the natural basis, the starting-point, the logical premise of all the rest; the only, in as much as he can see in advance that everything else is, in some way or another, involved in it. This a t the same time is why he can at the start be in agreement with the unbeliever for whom the faith in the World is equally, though in a more narrow, and restrictive sense, the only certain thing or value; at the same time PCre Teilhard hopes ultimately t o show him that being ‘the first thing’ it must progressively be followed by the three others, and so be transformed t o become in the end ‘the last.’4

Buber’s conception of the “narrow ridge” is most pertinent t o the natural tension Teilhard envisions between God and the world. The “narrow ridge” refers to a paradoxical unity of what might appear as exclusive alternatives. In unifying the dualisms, one sees the reality of each and strives in his thinking and behaving to attain the delicate balance or appropriate mean!4 In other words, God and the world are both real, but one must speak about their relationship very discreetly to avoid the extremes of saying that “God is the world,” or “the world is God.” For Teilhard it certainly becomes a matter of Christian living as well: when, how, and to what extent does one choose the world and cultivate the earthly, on the one hand; and when, how, and to what extent does he “give up” the world, on the other (since he must somehow ‘‘go beyond” the world since the world is not God)?4

A highly significant conclusion is the orientation or all that is human toward the divine. Super-personalization is the end of man, and that is the IJniversal Christ.

From these Teilhardian principles what implications can we find for education in general and Christian schools in particular‘? Three specific features of this teaching lend themselves t o application: 1) apologetical methodology, 2) the “narrow ridge” in general, and 3 ) the relationship between God and the world.

Teilhard’s approach in attempting to ‘‘sell’’ his belief in the Universal Christ to unbelievers deserves the attention of educators. He is obviously, throughout How I Believe, engaged in the process of teaching. One of the most significant features of his procedure is the awareness he exhibits of the otherness of the other. In setting out his

4 3 DeLubac, pp. 142 143. 4 4 Martin Buber, Between Man and Man. by Ronald Gregor Smith (London: Kegan Paul, 1937), p.

184; and Maurice S. Friedman, Martin Buber: The Li/e oJDiulogue ( N . Y . : Harper & Kow, Publishers, Incorporated, 19601, p. 3.

4 J Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu: A n Essay on (he Inrerior L f e (N. Y.: Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated, 1960).

2 74 EDUCATIONAL THEORY

doctrine and connecting his principles, he consistently’ “views from the other side ;” he sees and feels as the student (the unbeliever in this case) sees and feels, insofar as that is possible. By starting with what the learner knows and by slow but steady progress to the deeper, more complex, and more complete, he provides the ground-work for motivation and comprehension on the part of the unbeliever. He could not accomplish this without becoming sensitive to, aware of, and disposed to accept his listener. (Perhaps Buber would say that the learner becomes a Thou for him.)

As a good teacher, he is very honest for example, about the vagueness of his faith in the world. Through careful explanations, he suggests only what is appropriate at each stage of development, but he does so in such a way as not to have to retract anything. This is extremely important in teaching at any level.

Secondly, the Teilhardian version of the “narrow ridge,” or the doctrine of the mean: has been exhibited in at least two instances in our limited analysis. First of all, human beings constitute neither a meaningless flux of totally differing individuals nor mere symbols of an abstract unity (both extremes are averted). Rather, they are individual persons sharing a common essence; they are somewhat the same and somewhat different.

Both individuality and an essential nature are real. What specifically is essential to man as man, and what is unique and accidental to individuals is, of course, a further question-yet an important one for the “narrow ridge.” A second example of the “narrow ridge” is Teilhard’s Leaching on God and the world: the world does not exist without God, nor vice versa. Furthermore, God is neither identified with the world nor irretrievably distant from it. Both God and the world are real; they are distinct, but not separated. The Universal Christ is a synthesis of Christ and the universe.

The issue here is the meaning of the “narrow ridge” for education. Does this attitude, by means of which one refuses the tendency to either-or, but sees the reality of both poles of the dualism and strives to unify them by attaining a fitting balance in each situation, have any meaning for educators? A positive answer appears evident. A very general example concerns what might be a legitimate synonym for “education,” the effort to influence another to become himself. That is a paradox. The two extremes, though they may never have existed in practice, may be described as follows: a) a rigid and universal prescription of what the student must be, do, and become; and b) a permissiveness which makes no demands whatsoever. Common sense, as well as the “narrow ridge,” dictates a mean between the extremes. Certainly, the educator wants to influence the student regarding matters inevitably viewed from his own (the educator’s) subjectivity; the teacher-student relationship would hardly exist without that effort, and the result would unlikely be called education through teaching if no influence had been exerted. At the same time, the teacher must promote Lhe learner to become authentic; to be truly human, he must be himself. True to the “narrow ridge,” Teilhard would most likely admit that the student is taught by a teacher who is permissive within bounds, or who exercises authority within appropriate limits. The gnawing question every teacher confronts almost constantly is what kind and how much authority to exert, and when and in what way to be permissive. The “balance” is not necessarily found at a measurable mid-point between the two extremes since the procedure entailed is never exclusively a process of quantification; nor is it ever absolutely and finally ascertained-it must be sought in every new concrete situation.

The view of man described above in light of the “narrow ridge,” as possessing an individual as well as a common or universal nature, is a very useful one for teachers. One application is found in answering the question of what and how much work to require of all students, and what and how much to base upon individual tastes: interests, abilities, etc.

CHARDIN AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 275

The educational implications of the first two aspects of the Jesuit scholar’s principles cannot be considered unique to Christian schools; they pertain to all sound education. The third and final topic, the relationship between God and the world, may somehow distinguish the Christian school, however. Teilhard’s understanding of the reality of and the relationship between God and the world needs no further systematic review here. Three topics will be surveyed in this regard: a) goals of education, b) general life of the school, and c) academic subjects.

In light of Teilhard’s teaching, the goals (or objectives or aims) of the school must include the cultivation of the individual’s natural powers and instincts, for it is through this that one becomes more fully human: secondly, they must also include the development of truly human relationships with other persons and. thus, a healthy society, since the logic of progress in faith prohibits isolationism and demands involving oneself with others. The formation of the natural individual and social being has a further (third) purpose, however, namely, faith in the Universal Christ and ultimately union with this synthesis of Christ and the universe. While these three purposes may be distinguished, it is important to note that the third purpose cannot be sought apart from the first two, and the first two assume their full meaning only when conjoined with the third. In other words, while one might cultivate and develop the human in man with no advertence to the divine, the true role of natural capacities is to lead one to Christ. and without them one cannot attain that end; furthermore, one is somehow not fully himself without the divinity, the Christian dimension. The relationship Teilhard portrays between the human and the divine, so difficult to paraphrase accurately, must also pervade the purposes of education. I t would seem that these educational goals would be embodied only in Christian schools.

The general life of the school, the second area of application of the relationship between the world and God, apparently would be characterized by an effort of each to enhance the overall awareness of the need to love one another and Christ. Essential elements of this love for one another would be a recognition of the worth and dignity as well as the uniqueness of each person? and the promotion of each person’s being toward an end common to all. I t is clear without elaboration that the responsibilities of teachers and those of students in this regard are somewhat the same and somewhat different. The kind and motivation of love envisioned here would appear to be distinctive of Christians, and therefore, Christian schools.

Finally, this doctrine of Teilhard may have some implications for the academic life of the school. The following presumes, of course, a specific view of knowledge, truth, and academic discipline which cannot be explicated here. Certainly, all the so-called secular sciences will be pursued in their own right and in accord with the highest standards evident to man. Philosophy and theology will also occupy a place in the circle of studies. Very crucial in this scheme is the relationship between the sacred and the secular, that is, between theology and the other arts and sciences. That relationship must be realized in terms of the relationship Teilhard describes between God and the world. One somewhat practical situation might exemplify the point. Every teacher, regardless of the subject which he is teaching, embodies values; he may or may not be aware of the values which guide his choices, but those choices are not made without values. For example. the question might arise in a biology class, why study biology? Because one’s values cannot be formulated without some reference to one’s philosophy of life and his religion (ultimately, Christian theology, according to Teilhard), the answer to the question cannot be provided solely in terms of biological principles and methodology. Yet, the question pertains to the matter at hand and should be answered. Because no man is a pure biologist, but a valuing being who happens to be a biologist, arid because the values essential to answering this question are not derived solely from biology, the biologist

276 EDUCATIONAL THEORY

must bring other kinds of knowledge (including philosophy and theology) to bear upon his chosen field. He can do so honestly and intelligently, without eroding the science of biology. In fact, many kinds of questions about biology may demand evidence from other fields of knowledge. If the biologist cannot explain the necessary principles entailed, he should refer the student to the appropriate specialist(s). The lines between and among disciplines must be crossed if teachers are to fulfill their responsibilities to help students attain true wisdom.

The pattern of values which each teacher holds upon entering the classroom and which is not unrelated to the subject he is teaching, should resemble essentially that of every other teacher in the school if Teilhard is correct about the nature of man, the world and God.

The reader, of course, is aware that the educational principles discussed here are not necessarily Teilhard's. Therefore, we can only conclude that if Teilhard is true to reality in How I Believe, if the given interpretation of his doctrine is sound, and if the educational tenets are deduced with reason, then we might fruitfully set out to construct along these lines a school which is totally Christian and totally a school.

LANGUAGE AND

A multidisciplinary quarterly reference work

do LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

.+GOAGf 86 \?

0 LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR ABSTRACTS

d providing access to the current world literature in

f 4 &+q+i 3

0 ' 1967 .

I Approximately 1500 English abstracts per issue from 1000 publications in

32 languages and 25 disciplines Anthropology Linguistics Pcycholinguistics

Audiology Otology Khe toric Clinical Psychology Pediatrics Semiotics Communication Science\ Pharmacology Sociolinguistics

Philosophy Sociology Education Gerontology Phonctics Spaech 1 :aryngology Physiology Speech Pathology

Psychiatry

Subscriptions: $80.00 for institutions; $40.00 for individuals (includes issue index and annual cumulative index). Rates for back issues available upon request.

Cumulative aulhor, subject, book, and periodical indices to Volumes I-V(1967-1971) , $60.

LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR ABSTRACTS Subscription Address: 13 Eighth Avenue

Brooklyn, New York I1215

Applied Linguivtic? Neurology Prychology