Increasingly calls are being made for the integration of spirituality into formal education (Carr & Haldane 2003; Palmer 1993; Vokey 2003; Wane & Ritskes 2011). It seems that this is a reflection of a wider turn to spirituality in public life and in academia, which Kourie (2006:35) sees as ‘an indication of a deep-felt desire within the hearts of women and men to find unity and wholeness, both individually and in society’.

There remains within the academic discourse a lack of clearly defined criteria for the investigation and evaluation of spirituality (Anderson & Grice 2014:15; Botha 2006:95). The same can be said of the discourse regarding spirituality in formal education (cf. Dayton 2015:1). However, discussions in this area seem to have a specific emphasis in common. The emphasis here is on spirituality as ‘connection’, whether a ‘deep connection’ between the teacher, the learner and the object(s) of study (Jones 2005:6; cf. Palmer 1993:88–89), a connection between the learner and the world (Dayton, 2015:2; Wane & Ritskes 2011:xvi) or a connection between knowledge and moral behaviour (Culham 2015:309). As shown by these examples, there is no clear consensus regarding the kind of connection that should be striven for in education. Vokey (2003:174) seems to be correct in suggesting that approaches to spirituality in education are as varied as views of ‘what it is that we are currently alienated from’.

The search for spirituality in education then can to a large extent be understood as a reaction to perceived alienation or ‘disconnection’ in contemporary education (cf. Palmer 1993:x). More fundamentally, the search for spirituality has to do with the question of what the purpose of education is. This is illustrated by Carr and Haldane (2003:2) when they explain their and their co-workers’ interest in the relation between education and spirituality as being an interest in ‘the question of what schooling might aim for in the field of personal formation beyond the acquisition of transferable skills and broad social values’.

On the negative side, the perceived lack of spirituality in contemporary education is often attributed to wrong or narrow conceptions of the purpose of education. Palmer (1993:7–8), for instance interprets the disconnection in education as arising from the motives which have underlain the modern search for knowledge, namely those of curiosity and control. Both these motives create distance between the learner and his or her world. Kawano (2011:106) again, regards the threat to ‘the development of a sense of interconnectedness’ in schooling as coming from a worldwide prioritisation of economic goals.¹

Acknowledging that there is no religiously neutral view of spirituality or of the purpose of education, the present article is concerned with contributing to a Christian, specifically a reformational² approach to this issue. Van der Walt et al. (2008:13) have highlighted the contemporary need for working towards a better understanding of biblical spirituality and its place in education. The question that will specifically be dealt with in this article is: How can one understand the purpose of school education in such a way as to do justice to the contemporary search for spirituality (or spiritual connection) in education?

From a reformational perspective, spirituality should be understood within the framework of the relation between God and his creation.³ In this article I will turn to the works of the philosopher-theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), exploring his understanding of this relation. Edwards’ worldview and philosophy⁴ will first briefly be presented with the focus on his understanding of the relation between God and created reality. This will be followed by an exploration of three recurrent philosophical themes in Edwards’ writings which, as I will argue, have arisen from his understanding of the relation between God and creation. Thirdly, I will suggest applications of these three themes to the question of the purpose of school education, paying special attention to the matter of spirituality in education. A few of Edwards’ own educational ideas will be integrated into the discussion.⁵

Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of the potential of Edwards’ thought will be made from a reformational philosophical point of view. It is hoped that the explored themes may prove conducive to a reformational understanding of the purpose of education in which biblical spirituality is well accounted for.

Edwards, a Congregationalist pastor-theologian whose preaching would stir New England’s First Great Awakening (1730s to 1740s), had himself experienced a spiritual awakening at the age of seventeen. Upon reading the words of 1 Timothy 1:17, ‘Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever, Amen’, Edwards felt a ‘sense of the glory of the divine being’ which ‘gradually increased’, so that ‘[t]he appearance of everything was altered: there seemed to be, as it were, a calm, sweet cast, or appearance of divine glory, in almost everything’ (Edwards 1998:792–793). This event, as an expansive body of sermons, essays and notebook entries indicates,⁶ would subsequently shape his whole life and thought (cf. Noll 1995:145).

Edwards would never explain his sense of God’s glory ‘in almost everything’ as the merely subjective act of an impassioned imagination. In one of his last completed works, Dissertation concerning the end for which God created the world, he provides a firm ontological basis for the human experience of the glory of God in creation. Creation is here described as God’s purposeful communication of his glory, both through creation, as it came into existence, and to creation, as it already exists (Edwards 1989:432–437, 441–442). Creation is therefore related to God as a purposeful act is related to its subject. Edwards goes as far as to say that the universe may be regarded as ‘created out of nothing every moment’ (Edwards 1980c:241).

Given the prevalence of mechanistic science and philosophy in his time, it is quite understandable that Edwards would see the need for emphasising created reality as an ongoing act of God. The mechanistic conception of nature is that of a ‘self-contained and independent reality, a self-inclusive machine running by itself according to abstract, universal laws of nature’ (Zakai 2002:19). It is this conception that Edwards was contending against, even while acknowledging and marvelling at new discoveries (such as those made by Newton) of the ‘laws of nature’. For Edwards the laws of nature together with all of reality were conceivable only in relation to God. [T]o ‘find out the reasons of things in natural philosophy’, he (Edwards 1980e:353) insisted, ‘is only to find out the proportion of God’s acting’. Even ‘matter’ could be regarded as the immediate exercise of the divine power in a particular way (Edwards 1980b:215; 1980c:235).

The dynamism in Edwards’ worldview is teleologically motivated. While natural laws do exist, they exist only to serve the purposes of God who, ‘in all things, acts as being limited and directed in nothing but his own wisdom’ (Edwards 2004:202). From Scripture Edwards found ample evidence that the ultimate purpose with which God has created is to communicate his glory. This ‘glory’ was understood by Edwards mainly to consist of the knowledge, love and joy that exist between the three Persons of the Trinity (Edwards 1989:432–437, 441–442, 531).

It can be said of Edwards’ worldview and ontology that they are saturated with his conception of God’s glory (cf. Sairsingh 1986:3). If Edwards has something to offer to our present inquiry, it will be due to the ‘dialectical fearlessness’ (McClymond & Reinke 2012) with which he worked out the implications of this worldview and ontology in areas such as epistemology, anthropology and ethics. In the sections to follow, I will turn to Edwards’ ideas within these three areas, focusing specifically on three recurrent themes. I take each of these three themes to be to a certain extent, at least, a philosophical outcome of Edwards’ view of the world as ‘God-related’. This, as I will seek to show, makes them relevant for the present inquiry.

The following three themes will be investigated and applied to the question of the purpose of education (specifically with reference to spirituality), namely knowledge as the true perception of relations; human beings as creation’s consciousness; and sound morality as arising from true perception.

In his fine thesis on Edwards’ educational thought and practice, Stelting (1998) ends with the question: ‘What, for Edwards, would have been the whole purpose of education?’ He then offers this answer:

When Edwards mounted the pulpit, or approached the lectern, or sat beneath the tree in the churchyard on Sunday afternoons surrounded by children, it was for one purpose. He intended to create a context within which people might truly, fully, and savingly see God; and that God might enter into them, giving them, by apprehension, a truth they could not otherwise know. He wished to teach people to know God as he knew God. (pp. 216–217)

Stelting’s observation provides us with a helpful point of departure for the application of Edwards’ thought to the question of the purpose of education. I will now make three applications, roughly corresponding to the three themes discussed above. These applications will be focused on school education, and specifically school education that is undertaken from a Christian perspective.

My first application is derived from the first discussed theme, which was termed ‘Knowledge as the true perception of relations’. In the execution of this application, the second theme, ‘Human beings as creation’s consciousness’, is also involved. The first application can be summarised as follows: Education should provide a context where learners may increasingly perceive the world as God-related, and therefore glory-filled.

Stelting’s choice of the words ‘create a context’ is an apt formulation of what education as Edwards saw it, is able to achieve. According to Edwards a true perception of the world is possible only if the world is seen in its relation to the glory of God. Within such perception the manifold relations in the world can also be understood and appreciated, since it is through beautiful creaturely relations that the glory of God is communicated. Such perception, however, is possible only through the ‘spiritual sense’ through which the glory of God is known as if sensibly perceived.

Although Edwards views the spiritual sense as the direct outcome of the work of the Spirit, he also believes that God, in letting this light into the soul, deals with the human being according to his or her ‘nature’, keeping the ‘natural faculties’ active in the process (Edwards 1999b:416). Moreover the spiritual sense incorporates and enhances the working of the five senses and of the mind as a whole (cf. 1999b:415). It follows that education can and should provide a context for spiritual perception, that is, for true perception of the world in its relation to God. Not only should it provide a possible context for the regenerative work of the Spirit in bestowing spiritual perception, but also (and in the case of the school, I would say, especially) a context for the increasing exercise of spiritual perception.

Before continuing to a second application, it is worthwhile to pause and consider how a school may provide a context for the increasing perception of the world in its relation to God. While the importance of sensory experience in education should be recognised (Adams 1991), sensory experiences by themselves do not guarantee that ideas will be truthfully related. Edwards would agree with Du Plooy et al. (1982:53–55)¹⁰ when they remind us that children need to be guided in their natural search for meaning. While the world is full of meaning – since it exists to communicate the glory of God – this meaning can only be realised through the world’s human ‘consciousness’. Thus learners need to be helped in ‘interpreting’ their sensory experiences. This help should come from teachers who themselves are able to perceive creation in its relation to the glory of God.

In view of this Edwards would recommend a dialogic style of education. This can be gathered from a letter written during his employment as missionary educator of Indian children at Stockbridge. He writes of his wish that not only ‘words’, but ‘things’ will be ‘in a familiar manner, opened to the child’s understanding’. A ‘familiar manner’ entails conversation with the teacher asking questions and encouraging the child to ‘speak freely’ and ask his own questions ‘for the resolution of his own doubts’ (Edwards 1998:408). Teaching should venture beyond the transferring of facts to the stimulation and truthful answering of questions regarding the unity and the meaning of what is learned. For this, both competency in the teacher and trusting relationships between the teacher and his or her learners, are imperative.

Now for a second application which is derived from the second theme, ‘Human beings as creation’s consciousness’. This application can perhaps be understood as a necessary component of the first application. It can be stated as follows: Education should guide learners to come to know the world as made for them, and themselves as made for it.

The words ‘made for’ may indeed be essential in helping learners experience connection with the world they are getting to know. Since this connection is given by God and has the purpose of making his glory known, one may truly speak of it as a spiritual connection. This connection (or relation) is aptly described by Fowler (1991):

We belong to earth; this is our home. At the same time this earthly home is not a place at a distance from God. It is the sphere of our fellowship with God who walks this earth with us, revealing himself throughout our earthly life. (p. 18)

In their relation with the rest of creation, human beings are responsible not only to creation, but ultimately to God. It is a relation in which, according to Edwards, they have the position of ‘consciousness’. This has profound implications for education. The human responsibility towards the world consists neither in controlling (cf. Palmer 1993:7–8), nor in consuming it (cf. Goheen, 2000:45–47). At the same time it does not end with a concern for preserving it or ensuring its sustainability. Whereas educational thought that centres on sustainability tends to advocate the development of ‘ecological’ or ‘systems’ thinking through schooling (cf. Sterling 2001:52; 2008), Edwards would also insist on asking the question: What is the system for? This question is implied in his (Edwards 1994) response to the supposed allegation that Christian ‘devotion’ makes on less ‘useful’ to the world:

[This is] the same thing as to say that the world was made that the parts of it might be mutually useful to each other; that is, that the world was made to have all the parts of it nicely hanging together, and sweetly harmonising and corresponding: that is that the world might be a nicely contrived world; that is, that the world was nicely contrived for nothing at all! (pp. 189–190)

If human beings are indeed the consciousness of creation as Edwards understood it, then education should develop awareness with learners that they are not free to choose the meaning of the world and of their own place in it. They should continually be reminded that the relation between themselves and the world is there to serve an ultimate purpose. This purpose is that the glory of God may be known. Learners should come to see themselves, moreover, as having a pivotal role in this regard.

The third application pertains to the response that is required of human beings, if they are to be active agents in the communication of the glory of God. This application is derived from the third theme, ‘Sound morality as arising from true perception’, and can be stated as follows: Education should promote moral behaviour as a response to true perception.

The idea that behaviour arises from ‘inward thoughts’ or worldviews is criticised by Wolterstorff (2002:82). He is concerned that an ‘inward’ emphasis has led to education that does not impact learners’ daily lives. Edwards on the other hand, would attribute a lack of impact not to the emphasis on thoughts, but to the emphasis on a type of thought which he terms ‘notional understanding’ (Edwards 1959:272). As already mentioned, although notional understanding is necessary, it only impacts behaviour in so far as it results in ‘sensible’ understanding, or the ‘sense of the heart’. When things are known with the ‘sense of the heart’, they are known in ‘their relation to our wills, and affections, and interest’ (Edwards 2000:460).

Of course understanding through the ‘sense of the heart’ can be misguided. After all, our ‘wills, and affections, and interest’ can be, to use Edwards’ language, ‘constricted’. What is required for moral goodness is not only sensible understanding, or perception, but true perception, informed by the sensible understanding of Gods glory. I would suggest that it is through promoting true perception that a school can promote morally sound behaviour. This approach can have the advantage of keeping intact the cognitive focus¹¹ of the school, while fostering connection between knowledge and morality.

The third application can therefore be taken as an extension of the first, with the school’s task of providing a context for true perception now focused on the perception of deliberate human conduct. As Edwards would remind us, a true perception of human actions includes affectively knowing them in their moral goodness or evil. Again sensory encounters and interpretive discussions may serve to provide a context for such perception.

It lies outside the scope of this article to give a comprehensive evaluation of Edwards’ philosophical thought from a reformational philosophical point of view. For the present I leave largely untouched, for instance the possible concern that Edwards was guilty of ‘synthesis thinking’, incorporating biblical concepts with ideas from non-biblical origins such as Platonism and Scottish realism (cf. Runner 1970:82).¹² My main reason for refraining from such an evaluation is the manifest lack of scholarly consensus regarding this issue. To what extent Edwards was in fact influenced by classical and modern philosophies, and which philosophies influenced him most strongly, are still matters of debate (Freeberg 1999:202–205; Louie 2007:62–63).

For the present, two matters will briefly be considered, as they pertain especially to a biblical understanding of spirituality and its place in education.

Firstly, there is the question of whether Edwards’ concept of the ‘spiritual sense’ can further a biblical understanding of spirituality and of its place in education. It is clear that for Edwards the ‘spiritual sense’ is present solely where there is true faith. However, if the ‘spiritual sense’ amounts to a ‘sixth sense’ (cf. Lane 2004), there is reason for caution. We are reminded by reformational authors (cf., for instance Wolters 2005:71–72) that salvation and regeneration do not entail the addition of a spiritual dimension as a donum superadditum. Rather in salvation and regeneration the spiritual (or religious) dimension, which is already present in and central to every human being’s life, is restored and redirected. One may speak also of a redirection of the heart as the religious centre of the self which directs all aspects of life.

Edwards arguably sees too much discontinuity between life before and life after regeneration (Ortlund 2014:48). He describes the work of the Spirit in regeneration as ‘entirely above nature, altogether of a different kind that men find within themselves by nature’ (Edward 1959:205). Against this it should be emphasised that regeneration is restorative. The ‘sense of the heart’ after regeneration can only be new in the sense that it is a ‘restored’ sense.

This is not to deny that we can learn from Edwards’ conception of the spiritual sense as essential to regenerated (restored) human life. If Stelting (1998:217) is right, Edwards’ view of the spiritual sense can encourage the creation of educational contexts for the increasing perception of the glory of God. A school, as remarked often by reformational philosophers, needs not take up the role of a family or a church in order to be spiritual in its purpose. It needs not adopt the aim of transferring doctrines of faith. It should, however, serve as a place where learners can increasingly come to know creation as the ongoing display of the glory of God. I have given indications as to how this might be achieved in the previous section.

If Edwards’ concept of the spiritual sense is, as I have argued, conducive to a reformational understanding of the purpose of education (i.e. provided the excessive discontinuity between ‘natural’ and ‘renewed’ life is adjusted), it still remains to be determined how conducive Edwards’ view of the object of the spiritual sense might be. This is my second point of evaluation. The object of the spiritual sense is the glory of God, or as Edwards often puts it, God’s beauty. This glory or beauty is harmoniously communicated through Scripture and through creation. The communication of it reaches its culmination in God’s redemption of the world through Jesus Christ (cf. Gibson 2008:65–75).

We can learn from Edwards as he emphasises a truth which even reformational philosophy, with its emphasis on the creation order and creational laws, does not always fully account for. This truth is that creation is God’s ongoing communication of his glory. While learners should be taught to understand the ‘particular laws of nature with respect to particular creatures’ (Edwards 2004:205), they should also be taught to trace how these laws serve the ultimate purpose for which the world was made, which is that God’s glory may be communicated. Yet while we can learn from Edwards’ teleological emphasis on creation, we should reject the idealist and world-negating directions in which this emphasis often led him (cf. Rupp 1969). If creation can be understood as the ‘communication’ of God’s glory, then this communication should be understood as encompassing all aspects of created reality in their own significant ways. This will withhold us from elevating certain aspects of creation above others, and instead embolden us to look for the glory of God as he displays it in all of creation.

In the same way the human role of being creation’s ‘consciousness’ will also be seen as embracing all aspects. Van der Stelt (2005:55) points us in this direction when he calls for a more comprehensive and more biblical understanding of ‘knowing’, as ‘being aware of, attuned to, looking for, relying upon, responding to, rejoicing in, and giving expression to God’s will for all created reality’. In the work of Edwards such a comprehensive understanding of knowledge is sometimes implied, but not fully developed.

In this article three philosophical themes in the thought of Jonathan Edwards were explored and applied to the question of the purpose of education. The present search for spiritual ‘connection’ in education is related to the question of what the purpose of education should be. It was suggested that Edwards’ thought may be conducive to a reformational view of the purpose of school education in which the contemporary search for spiritual connection is accounted for.

It was argued that Edwards’ (worldviewish and ontological) understanding of the relation between God and creation has largely shaped his ideas in the areas of epistemology, anthropology and ethics. Edwards’ understanding of creation as an act of God, whereby he purposefully communicates his glory, is complemented by his view of knowledge as the true perception of relations, of human beings as creation’s consciousness, and of moral goodness as arising from true perception.

Three main applications were drawn from Edwards’ philosophical thought to the question of the purpose of education. The first of these is that education should provide a context where learners may increasingly perceive the world as God-related, and therefore glory-filled. For this it is necessary that education will serve as a context in which sensory encounters are accompanied by dialogical guidance.

The second application is that education should guide learners to come to know the world as made for them, and themselves as made for it. They should be guided in knowing and enjoying the relation between themselves and the rest of creation. At the same time they should be guided to come to know and enjoy this relation as one which is intended for the communication of God’s glory.

The third and final application is that education should promote sound morality as a response to true perception. Learners should be guided in perceiving human actions as responses to the God who has made humans to be the primary communicators of his glory. By learning to perceive human actions in this way, learners may themselves grow in moral goodness.

While not without its problems – some of which were dealt with in this article – Edwards’ philosophical thought may be fruitful soil for the furthering of a reformational understanding of the purpose of education. This may be especially through providing ways of conceptualising various types of ‘connection’ in school education. These include, for example connection between knowledge and affection, connection between the learner and the world, and connection between knowledge and morality. Types of connection such as these are today pursued under the banner of ‘spirituality’. Spirituality, or spiritual connection, should be comprehended within the framework of the relation between God and his creation.