In this rebuttal to Sean Whittle), Cooling and Smith opine that: 1) Whittle's key concern is with discerning the appropriate relationship between theology and education in the context of a Christian school, 2) Whittle's criticism of our work, is that it fails to achieve a proper relationship between theology and education, and 3) Whittle sees our approach as attempting to provide students with correct theological answers, and therefore describes it as confessional, which he then associates with indoctrination. Cooling and Smith point out that they agree with Whittle on several of his key concerns: indoctrination and deceit should be avoided, opportunistic teaching of random Christian ideas is inadequate at best, and theology should frame education and needs to be approached systematically with an eye to anthropology and ethics. Cooling and Smith also agree that there are matters here requiring ongoing clarification. While Whittle airs some important concerns about the relationship of theology to education and points to prevalent misunderstandings, he has in his critique chosen to ignore the theoretical discussion of pedagogy and theology underpinning "What If Learning" and has also neglected to examine the structure of particular examples in any detail. In so doing Cooling and Smith suggest that he has, unfortunately, set about demolishing two straw men.