Education, by its very definition, ought to grant wisdom. It is expected to enlighten scholars so that they become productive members of society. Yet something appears yawningly absent in the field of education today—especially when judged by those who boast of holding PhDs but leave no tangible benefit for humanity on the ground. The educational system seems unable to address social problems in a manner consistent with its promised value.
As non-scholars, we have every right to question the true worth of education, particularly when we face daily survival challenges in our country. If anyone came to shed light amid human confusion, it was Jesus. He ought to be the ultimate standard of what constitutes true education and its enlightening quality.
He was, after all, identified as a teacher of note—though rejected by those who assumed themselves educated when the opposite was true. Using Him as a template, we can discern the difference between wisdom and foolishness. For example, the modern habit of publicizing oneself after attaining a scholastic degree betrays a lack of wisdom when measured against the teachings of Jesus. The first example is this: the qualification Jesus held was that He was the Christ, yet He never sought to publicize that credential. “Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah” (Matthew 16:20).
The significance of education is that it is supposed to solve problems. If it cannot, its content must be viewed as either misinterpreted or founded on primitive domains. How else should education be interpreted if it fails to solve society’s common problems? Let us randomly pick two fields—politics and theology—as case studies.
Politics as a Case Study
Consider our current challenges. Zimbabwean universities have produced thousands of graduates in political science, the very starting point for crafting societal leaders. This calls for a careful cost-benefit analysis, given the millions of dollars invested in such programs. How do we quantify the benefits accruing to ordinary Zimbabweans from these erudite political scientists? The thousands of graduates are nowhere to be seen. Only one name is routinely treated as an authority: Professor Jonathan Moyo.
I assume Moyo is meant to portray the significance of what political science entails. Yet it is impossible to exclude him from the problems that have plagued Zimbabwe since the year 2000. His name featured prominently when his role appeared aimed at scuttling the constitutional wishes of the people. At that time, Zimbabweans had attempted to draft a constitution that would limit presidential powers.
Through his spin-doctoring escapades, Professor Moyo ensured that Robert Mugabe remained in power against the people’s will. The dictatorship continued, culminating in the November 2017 coup. Indeed, ZANU PF supporters may credit him for that feat—one achieved at the expense of the Zimbabwean people—though he later had to flee the country, threatened by the very comrades with whom he had hobnobbed.
Could this be the outcome of Professor Jonathan Moyo’s PhD in politics? From a layman’s point of view, there is a cause for every effect. Trace the origins of the coup, and you find the scuttling of the people’s will in the year 2000. The man who missed death by a whisker is the same one credited with maintaining ZANU PF’s hegemony. Without his spin-doctoring, the 2000 constitution would have been adopted according to the people’s wishes. ZANU PF would not have clung to power. Our disciplined military forces would have remained in the barracks, and Zimbabwe would have come of age in terms of acceptable democracy.
And yet, we now observe the same Professor taking an advisory role in the recently crafted Constitutional Amendment Act. Fairly or unfairly, some say that Moyo should not have been entertained, given his record. This brings us to the real concern: given his years of study, what has been the fruit? Considering Zimbabwe’s clear failures in the political landscape, should Moyo’s education be thrown out of the window, or not?
Do we need another duplicate political scholar? What benefit would such scholars bring if they only plunge us into perpetual political confusion? This is not a scholarly critique but a genuine one from a pragmatist’s point of view. The political journey of Professor Moyo is not savoury enough to be held up for posterity. What normal parent would advise a son to pursue political science after observing what this luminary in the political field has charted?
The chronicles of Jonathan Moyo’s service to our country’s politics contain nothing admirable—except, perhaps, his exposure of election rigging through his published “Excel-gate” book. Yet when we consider the earlier spin-doctoring that scuttled the 2000 constitutional drafting exercise, nothing has changed. The 2018 election rigging was produced from the very template Moyo championed in the early 2000s. Ordinary people seem unaware of this reality.
Nothing convinces an objective analyst that what transpired after scuttling the 2000 constitutional referendum had ordinary people at heart. What prevails today are the fruits of what was sown in 2002, when the political scientist served as chief government advisor. While tempting to limit my missiles to Professor Moyo, the critique cannot be exhaustive.
Whoever found it necessary to award him a professorship is also answerable. What are the measuring yardsticks of evaluation in that profession? What impressed the peer reviewers to conclude that a scholar of note had emerged in Moyo? As non-scholars, we are not interested in professional jargon but in results. How does a political science degree improve the livelihoods of ordinary people? What is the future of politics in Zimbabwe if Jonathan Moyo’s character has become the torchbearer?
Should parents allow their children to pursue such careers? What calibre are the lecturers of political science in our universities? What use is education if it does not produce people who can solve societal problems? Yet it is impossible to denounce education entirely, for it ought to grant freedom. Causal analysis suggests there can be no hope for humanity without education. But there must be clarity in defining what education truly entails.
Theology as a Case Study
Let us now direct our searchlight toward another universally accredited field: theology. Among college students, only those considered below-average performers at high school are normally channelled into theology. Mathematics and science are deemed the most important subjects. There is no disputing that religion is considered less important, reserved for supposedly dull students. A pragmatist would not be bothered by this, given that religion often appears devoid of substance. A normal thinker would not encourage a son or daughter to take up theology.
However, Jesus brought enlightenment to humanity, suggesting that theology is closest to the true Light-bearer—Jesus Christ Himself. Unless education is moulded according to His teachings, it carries no enduring value. The question is how His teachings can be taken seriously without misinformation. Jesus declared that His disciples were to become the light of the world. There is no authentic education apart from His philosophy, though scholars ignore it:
“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16 NIV).
If students are not being crafted according to this Scripture, what is the significance of theology in colleges? We inhabit a world of confusion so long as we avoid exposing the corruption in education. Which university faculty holds the most importance if not guided by the aforesaid Scripture? Humanity needs enlightenment. Thousands, if not millions, of professors of theology fill the world. Yet very few are known as founders of their own denominations. Most serve happily under pre-existing institutional structures.
In Zimbabwe, we observe the Vapostori sect numerically dominating by leaps and bounds. In other words, the most popular churches are not the academically grounded ones. It requires great discernment for an objective researcher to separate truth from error among these popular church groupings. But what then is the significance of education if it cannot take up leadership in these crucial matters of human survival—politics and theology?
Theologians are associated with Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, and many other traditional denominations. They comprise what is adopted as orthodox Christianity, galvanized by scholars who support their doctrinal positions. These scholars are recognized within their respective denominational enclaves but are not universally approvable across Christianity.
Since the Nicaean Council, the doctrine of the Trinity has gained acceptance as a uniting vector in traditional Christianity. Yet it takes only those guided by the Holy Spirit to notice that, though scholarly-backed, the doctrine of the Trinity is fallacious, as not grounded in the teachings of Jesus. The apostles themselves, except Paul, were not academically informed. And yet even Paul had to denounce his educational background to fully embrace Christ (Philippians 3:8). For that reason alone, an objective thinker cannot base understanding on theological scholars.
Scripture is clear that there is no wisdom in relying on human scholarly credentials to obtain godly information:
“Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:26-30 NIV).
Whether scholars consider this passage authentic is a matter for verification. But what Paul indicates is that understanding does not come through scholarly research. God chooses to reveal Himself only to those who are considered weak in the world. Therefore, a wise person shuns those whom God says He will shame. Truth is found among the lowly and despised. This requires wisdom, more than education—notwithstanding that education, in its true meaning, ought to provide that very wisdom.
The key scripture was pronounced by Jesus Himself:
“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?’ They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ ‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah” (Matthew 16:13-20 NIV).
Jesus clearly declares that flesh and blood could not reveal the mystery of understanding accorded to Peter. If we agree that scholars are flesh and blood, a wise person does not waste time reviewing scholarly material when searching for ultimate truth. Jesus later capped this reality by commanding His disciples not to tell anyone He was the Messiah (verse 20). No wise person would not take Jesus’ words seriously, basing understanding on everything that comes from Him—who declared that only those who obey His teachings will understand.
His instruction grew even more explicit before He left:
“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17 NIV).
There is no mention of scholars in that instruction. It takes only a wise person to understand that the spiritual revelation is senior to scholarly revelation. Otherwise, those who assume they see can never perceive this information clearly. This reality is as vividly projected by Jesus when some possibly educated Pharisees confronted Jesus, who had highlighted the condition of spiritual blindness:
Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshipped him. Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains” (John 9:38-41 NIV).
Truth is available through the teachings of Jesus, who commands that His words be taken seriously. The timeless truth is that we cannot discard a religious grouping based on the availability or absence of scholarly information, but only according to what Jesus taught. As humans, we remain in a quandary so long as we fail to recognize the only authority in education: Jesus Christ. Otherwise, there is no wisdom in education as it is currently formatted.
We all grope in darkness, regardless of our scholarly achievements. Wisdom is found in Jesus, the source of all true information. Literacy, while important compared to illiteracy, cannot be compared to wisdom—which can be accessed even by a person who cannot write their own name. Wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, which are spiritual, are obtainable through Jesus Christ alone.
The precondition is humility and a willingness to learn. As for who is used by Christ at any given time to enlighten others, that remains known only to Him. What appears unavoidable is the need to discard or unlearn everything a person might have cherished throughout their lifetime. This is just as Jesus recommended denying oneself before following Him (Luke 14:26-27), and as Paul unequivocally declared that all his accumulated knowledge amounted to ‘dung,’ compared to knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8).
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilisation, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, relieving those who have witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions, leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book to be a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99