Medieval Period:
With the rise of cathedrals came cathedral schools (early 500s), not only for the instruction of an up and coming priesthood but even for the local village boys. Bishops continued to tutor local boys in their homes. Tutoring came from a more educated relative, local priest, scrivener, curator, rector, etc. Boarding schools became more common in the latter period. Guilds created schools for their specialties and schools for the children of their members. Apprenticing was common as well. Endowed schools for primary education--supported by the wealthy or the town--were on the rise as well as the famous Latin grammar schools, which could be stand alone institutions or attached to a college.
Homeschooling was probably continued in many homes. Education under these more simplistic conditions probably included basic speaking ability and training in household chores and farming. As a rule, "poorer children, even if they or their parents were favorable to reading, might have to postpone the undertaking until adolescence or adulthood, and might not begin at all" (Orme, 246).
Charlemagne, concerned with the degraded learning among the monks, decreed in 789 AD that "schools be established in which boys may learn." A century later, King Alfred, taught by a tutor, decreed a similar proclamation in 901 AD. The Sixth General Council of Constantinople (680 AD) required the presbyters in the country towns and villages to teach gratis any child brought to him. Echoing similar provisions in the Council of Chalons (813 AD), the Council of Langres, and the Council of Savonnieres (859 AD), the Third Lateran Council in 1179 encouraged the cathedrals to create schools, especially for the poor.
European literacy rates are notoriously hard to discover. But the evidence grows after the 1100s. Literacy was facilitated through a communal approach (family, community and church) instead of an individual approach. Group readings were a mainstay for literacy. By the 1250s it appears that many who may not have been literate at least knew someone who was literate. Near the end of this period, households of royalty, nobility and even clergy "often included one or more schoolmasters to teach the lord’s children, wards, and the boys who sang in the chapel." Common-sense may suggest that the gentlemen, clergy, merchants and those with more leisure time and education gave some basic instruction to their children at home, but such evidence is scarce (Orme, Children, 241ff.).
By the late Medieval period, useful numbers began to appear. The Black Plague devastated England, lowering her population to around 2.5 million between 1348-1448 AD. Yet thirty-five grammar schools are known to have existed in three British shires during this time. The latest research is confident that in England alone during the late Medieval period a typical small town had at least one schoolmaster and possibly an assistant. London herself retained at least two dozen full or part-time teachers. Florance (1336-38) is known to have over 50% of the children in city schools. The Lowlands (Holland/Belgium) increased the number of primary schools from the twelfth century onward (as did England). Local schooling typically included children eight to sixteen years-old.
Many methods of instruction were practiced during the Medieval times. Such an eclectic approach continued into the Reformation.
Summary of References & Suggested Readings:
Medieval Children and Medieval Schools, Orme
History of Education, Cubberley
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
A Very Short History of Christian Education, 2/5
New Testament Times:
About one-hundred years before Christ, the Jewish leadership began promoting schools as a counterweight to Grecian influence. The schools were for boys ages five to thirteen, teaching rudimentary skills.
"In this period a synagogue presupposed a school, as with us a church implies a Sunday school. Hence the church and Sunday school, not the church and the district school, is a parallel to the Jewish system. The methods in these schools were not unlike those of the modern Sunday school. Questions were freely asked and answered, and opinions stated and discussed: any one entering them might ask or answer questions. Such a Jewish Bible school, no doubt, Jesus entered in the temple when twelve years old...in the apostolic period teachers were a recognized body of workers quite distinct from pastors, prophets, and evangelists (see 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 11; Heb. v. 12, etc.). The best commentators hold that the peculiar work of teachers in the primitive church was to instruct the young and ignorant in religious truth, which is precisely the object of the Sunday school." (Schaff, 2262)
Early Church:
The evidence of this time period is scarce. Some of the church fathers were schooled at home (Gregory of Nyssa), others locally (Basil) and others some combination thereof (Chrysostom). A few of the councils (Constantinople, Toledo and Vaison) ordered the erection of schools or commanded the priests to teach the local children. Some leaders, such as Polycarp, apprenticed local boys at their home. Even though the church fathers cautioned against pagan influence, men such as Chrystostom and Tertullian allowed and at times encouraged local schooling or tutoring. There were even bible schools for children.
Religious instruction being an important Christian goal, catechetical schools were also created.
“These catechetical classes and schools were intended to prepare neophytes, or new converts, for church-membership, and were also used to instruct the young and the ignorant in the knowledge of God and salvation. They were effective, aggressive missionary agencies in the early Christian churches, and have aptly been termed the 'Sunday schools of the first ages of Christianity.' The pupils were divided into two or three (some say four) classes, according to their proficiency. They memorized passages of Scripture, learned the doctrines of God, creation, providence, sacred history, the fall, the incarnation, resurrection, and future awards and punishments..." (Schaff)
Formal schooling existed alongside domestic education, even as it was expanding into new venues such as the monastery, cathedral and parish schools.
Summary References & Suggested Reading:
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section One. “The Jewish People in the First Century.” Vol. 2.
Catholic Encyclopedia Online
History of Education, Cubberley
A Religious Encyclopedia, Schaff, online.
About one-hundred years before Christ, the Jewish leadership began promoting schools as a counterweight to Grecian influence. The schools were for boys ages five to thirteen, teaching rudimentary skills.
"In this period a synagogue presupposed a school, as with us a church implies a Sunday school. Hence the church and Sunday school, not the church and the district school, is a parallel to the Jewish system. The methods in these schools were not unlike those of the modern Sunday school. Questions were freely asked and answered, and opinions stated and discussed: any one entering them might ask or answer questions. Such a Jewish Bible school, no doubt, Jesus entered in the temple when twelve years old...in the apostolic period teachers were a recognized body of workers quite distinct from pastors, prophets, and evangelists (see 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 11; Heb. v. 12, etc.). The best commentators hold that the peculiar work of teachers in the primitive church was to instruct the young and ignorant in religious truth, which is precisely the object of the Sunday school." (Schaff, 2262)
Early Church:
The evidence of this time period is scarce. Some of the church fathers were schooled at home (Gregory of Nyssa), others locally (Basil) and others some combination thereof (Chrysostom). A few of the councils (Constantinople, Toledo and Vaison) ordered the erection of schools or commanded the priests to teach the local children. Some leaders, such as Polycarp, apprenticed local boys at their home. Even though the church fathers cautioned against pagan influence, men such as Chrystostom and Tertullian allowed and at times encouraged local schooling or tutoring. There were even bible schools for children.
Religious instruction being an important Christian goal, catechetical schools were also created.
“These catechetical classes and schools were intended to prepare neophytes, or new converts, for church-membership, and were also used to instruct the young and the ignorant in the knowledge of God and salvation. They were effective, aggressive missionary agencies in the early Christian churches, and have aptly been termed the 'Sunday schools of the first ages of Christianity.' The pupils were divided into two or three (some say four) classes, according to their proficiency. They memorized passages of Scripture, learned the doctrines of God, creation, providence, sacred history, the fall, the incarnation, resurrection, and future awards and punishments..." (Schaff)
Formal schooling existed alongside domestic education, even as it was expanding into new venues such as the monastery, cathedral and parish schools.
Summary References & Suggested Reading:
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section One. “The Jewish People in the First Century.” Vol. 2.
Catholic Encyclopedia Online
History of Education, Cubberley
A Religious Encyclopedia, Schaff, online.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Prayer for Chris Klicka
Homeschool defender, Chris Klicka, was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy a few years back. It looks as though His Maker may be calling him home soon.
Please keep this courageous man and his family in your prayers.
Please keep this courageous man and his family in your prayers.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Global Warming Scam Discovered?
A Very Short History of Christian Education, 1/5
Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past.
— George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
— George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
It was a little over ten years ago that I first heard about a new and strange form of education. At my new church, I rubbed shoulders with homeschooling families. And having experienced firsthand the modern public schools, I easily accepted this “homeschooling.”
In fact, when my first group speech debate was thrust upon me in the dreaded college freshman speech class, I eagerly accepted my assignment to defend homeschooling against all on-comers. Rushing to church, I read what families handed me on the superiority of home education, especially its history. Standing tall and confident in the scholarship of those of like-minded faith and practice (some who were even public school teachers), I seemingly trounced the competing public school and private school proponents—until afterward when my gentle speech teacher, lauding my eloquence, chided me on my weak historical evidence. “Many founding fathers were schooled or tutored as well as taught at home,” he gently informed me.
Naturally, I was crestfallen.
Now, after a few years of research, I have verified my teacher's chiding.
This historical question is important. Many conservative Christians take history seriously: if our spiritual forefathers practiced a certain way maybe we should take it seriously. Furthermore, setting up Patrick Henry or John Witherspoon as educational role models adds addition pressure on families--especially if the history is false.
And the history is false.
The more I have studied the original resources and works by standard historians, the more I discovered that homeschooling was only one of many options exercised by our spiritual and political fathers and mothers.
But what is education anyway?
Education can be conceived of in both a broader and narrower sense. In the former, it may be labeled nurture: the spiritual, physical and intellectual well-being of the child made in Christ's image for the furtherance of the Kingdom. This involves (in the least) the teaching of truth (as any endeavor would), discipline and imitation. Narrowly, education can be conceived of as a more structured/systematic teaching of facts, understanding and wisdom concerning the realms of human (and divine) knowledge within the sphere of Christian nurture. I will label this schooling.
Thus, in examining the history of Christian schooling I am referring to the narrow idea. The series and the research would have tripled if the first definition was followed. The idea and practice of nurture is wrapped around Christian schooling, but it is not the focus of this series. Thus homeschooling means schooling at home (not nurture at home per se--that's assumed). This is instruction at home primarily by the parents, although tutors may periodically be employed.
Definitions are important to avoid equivocations--a common error I have encountered in my study. If the past is misinterpreted and misunderstood, then future expectations will be misdirected. One thing is important: historically, Christian education--in fact, most education--was a cooperative laissez-faire effort.
This short, short history of education will include Jewish practices during Christ's time, the early church, the Medieval era, and both the Reformation and early American eras.
I hope this series is encouraging and helpful as it is informative for those parents carrying on the Christian tradition of training their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
(This series is a condensed version of a soon-to-be-published A Short History of Christian Education)
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Lessons from the Reformation
What do ghosts and goblins have in common with Luther and Calvin? Both are celebrated on October 31st. Yet only one group had historical significance.
The Reformation of Luther and Calvin changed the West, leading to the creation of America. That is something to celebrate. But many today cannot celebrate it because so little is known—our children know more about the origins of blood-sucking vampires than the cultural life-force known as the Reformation. Yet many historians acknowledge the predominate influence of the Reformation on the formation of America (just Google the quotes below).
George Bancroft, founder of Annapolis Academy and one of the first American historians, asserted, “He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
Historically, conscience-anguished Martin Luther found peace through faith in the person and work of Christ. Having nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg on October 31st, he blazed a path which John Calvin followed and expanded. Calvin’s theological system encompassed all of life, and his world view was carried to the new world: the French Huguenots of the Southern colonies, the Dutch colonists of Manhattan and the English Puritans of New England. Three key foundation-stones of early American culture were laid by the ideas of Calvin and others: church liberty, universal education and the right to resistance. Let the historians speak for themselves.
Yale historian George Fisher wrote: “How is it, then, that Calvinism is acknowledged, even by foes, to have promoted powerfully the cause of civil liberty? The reason lies in the boundary line which it drew between church and State. Calvinism would not surrender the peculiar notions of the Church to the civil authority. Whether the church, or the Government, should regulate the administration of the Sacrament, and admit or reject the communicants, was the question which Calvin fought out with the authorities at Geneva…” This idea was institutionalized in the Puritans of the Presbyterian Church and Congregationalist settlers on the shores of America.
Dedication to education was the hallmark of the Reformers and the settlers in America. A mixture of local schooling initiatives and laisser-faire education formed the basis of American education. Historian Bancroft again asserts: “We boast of our common schools; Calvin was the father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free schools.”
The right to resist unlawful government was furthered by the Reformers. Dave Kopel (of the Independence Institute) wrote in Liberty magazine, October 2008, “The [REFORMED]Congregationalist and Presbyterian ministers played an indispensible role in inciting the American Revolution.” The great statesman John Adams bluntly acknowledged the widespread influences of both the 16th-century French-Calvinist’s work Vindicus Contra Tyrannus and the English Calvinist work of Ponet (A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power); both books defended the right of the people to rise against tyrants. Modern historians such as Daniel Elazar (of Temple University) have made similar claims: “In all of the places where Reformed Protestantism was strong, there emerged a Protestant republicanism that opposed tyrants even as it demanded local religious conformity.”
In fact, most of the early American culture was Reformed or tied strongly to it (just read the New England Primer). Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a Roman Catholic intellectual and National Review contributor, asserts: “If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the Founding Fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather…”
“So what?” you ask. Well, if we are to avoid the errors of the past, are we not also to learn from the victories of history? The least we can do is understand what the Reformation was all about and what elements were so vital to the formation of America. And perhaps, just maybe, America can be renewed to her former glory.
The Reformation of Luther and Calvin changed the West, leading to the creation of America. That is something to celebrate. But many today cannot celebrate it because so little is known—our children know more about the origins of blood-sucking vampires than the cultural life-force known as the Reformation. Yet many historians acknowledge the predominate influence of the Reformation on the formation of America (just Google the quotes below).
George Bancroft, founder of Annapolis Academy and one of the first American historians, asserted, “He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
Historically, conscience-anguished Martin Luther found peace through faith in the person and work of Christ. Having nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg on October 31st, he blazed a path which John Calvin followed and expanded. Calvin’s theological system encompassed all of life, and his world view was carried to the new world: the French Huguenots of the Southern colonies, the Dutch colonists of Manhattan and the English Puritans of New England. Three key foundation-stones of early American culture were laid by the ideas of Calvin and others: church liberty, universal education and the right to resistance. Let the historians speak for themselves.
Yale historian George Fisher wrote: “How is it, then, that Calvinism is acknowledged, even by foes, to have promoted powerfully the cause of civil liberty? The reason lies in the boundary line which it drew between church and State. Calvinism would not surrender the peculiar notions of the Church to the civil authority. Whether the church, or the Government, should regulate the administration of the Sacrament, and admit or reject the communicants, was the question which Calvin fought out with the authorities at Geneva…” This idea was institutionalized in the Puritans of the Presbyterian Church and Congregationalist settlers on the shores of America.
Dedication to education was the hallmark of the Reformers and the settlers in America. A mixture of local schooling initiatives and laisser-faire education formed the basis of American education. Historian Bancroft again asserts: “We boast of our common schools; Calvin was the father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free schools.”
The right to resist unlawful government was furthered by the Reformers. Dave Kopel (of the Independence Institute) wrote in Liberty magazine, October 2008, “The [REFORMED]Congregationalist and Presbyterian ministers played an indispensible role in inciting the American Revolution.” The great statesman John Adams bluntly acknowledged the widespread influences of both the 16th-century French-Calvinist’s work Vindicus Contra Tyrannus and the English Calvinist work of Ponet (A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power); both books defended the right of the people to rise against tyrants. Modern historians such as Daniel Elazar (of Temple University) have made similar claims: “In all of the places where Reformed Protestantism was strong, there emerged a Protestant republicanism that opposed tyrants even as it demanded local religious conformity.”
In fact, most of the early American culture was Reformed or tied strongly to it (just read the New England Primer). Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a Roman Catholic intellectual and National Review contributor, asserts: “If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the Founding Fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather…”
“So what?” you ask. Well, if we are to avoid the errors of the past, are we not also to learn from the victories of history? The least we can do is understand what the Reformation was all about and what elements were so vital to the formation of America. And perhaps, just maybe, America can be renewed to her former glory.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Fate of Faith, Family and the Future
Sixty-five percent of Mosaics and Busters in America (ages 18-41) “have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important.” Twenty-nine percent of that group is “absolutely committed to the Christian faith.” Three-percent of that same group have a Christian worldview.
Three-percent.
Does that shock you? It shocks me—that’s my age group!
The Barna group statistics define a worldview as believing that “Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and he still rules it today,” salvation is a free gift of God, Satan is real, Christians should witness, the Bible is accurate and the source of moral, absolute truth (unChristian, p.75).
What does this mean for the faith, the family and the future?
First of all, it means the objective content (faith) of Evangelicals is rapidly disappearing. Without the Biblical worldview as the guiding principle of millions of Christian’s lives, wrong decisions and actions will increase; holiness will decrease. Churches will become businesses and entertainment centers. Truth will die by a thousand qualifications. And more importantly, we will shame Christ.
Second, the Christian family will crumble. Religious speak will still exist, but it will be hollow and mechanical. Families may act Christian but believe falsehood. Parents will live and act in ignorance of Biblical truth. Children will be swallowed whole by cults and outright unbelief. Generations will be lost.
Third, (and I speak as a man) the future will be lost—the future of America at any rate. We are even now seeing that loss. As the culture goes so goes the nation; and as the churches go so goes the culture. Culture is religion externalized.
“Why did this happen? What can I do?” you may ask.
Hosea 4:6 is God’s warning to those who know Him but do not know Him: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…”
Strong but true words. American churches and families must take it to heart. It is certainly not the case that conservative Christians as a whole are purposefully trying to avoid more knowledge of God and His Word. It certainly is not that. Yet the statistics (from the last ten years at least) point to increased deviation from the Bible in principle and practice. Something is amiss.
Unfortunately, this is not all. Barna’s poll of born-again Christians shows that almost forty-percent believe “if a person is good enough” they can be saved. 57% of Evangelicals allow for other ways to heaven than solely through Christ (2008 Pew study). Even learning a “worldview” is for naught if the Gospel is missing from its foundation.
The Barna study should be a wake-up call. But it will not be a wake up call if no one takes it to heart. I take it to heart. It grieves me. Does it grieve you?
Although increasing in understanding and wisdom does not automatically bring salvation or even sanctification, it is certainly fundamental. Without proper knowledge there is no growth. How can the spiritual tree of your life increase in Christ if you don’t know the difference between rotten and healthy fruit?
Perhaps you have heard this all before. Do you believe it? In which case, continue the struggle, pray for a revival and continue to help your family and support faithful churches. Do you still doubt? Reread those statistics. Either way, take Hosea 4:6 to heart. Re-examine your beliefs in detail:
1. Who is God? Is He omnipotent, omniscient? So what?
2. What is sin? How extensive is sin? How does this impact my family?
3. Who is Christ? Was He sinless? Why is this important?
4. How are we saved? By works? What is faith alone? So what?
This is just the tip of the iceberg: for to simply define terms is not enough, we must know how they relate to other truths and why they are important in the Christian life. The admonition in Hosea is not to only have intellectual knowledge of God (is God really satisfied with that?)—no, Hosea wants us to know the what as well as the how and why.
Do you want to be the generation that was destroyed for a lack of knowledge? Do you want our churches to be bastions of Biblical truth, seminaries of in-depth learning that challenge your preconceptions? Or do we want to remain spiritual children feeding on milk instead of feeding upon solid food? (Heb. 5:12ff.)
The Reformation of Luther, Knox and Calvin began as a return to the Word of God, specifically the Gospel—both the knowledge and use of it. The First & Second Awakenings followed the exact same path. That means you have to get your hands dirty and dig into the rich soil of the Bible—learning theology, doctrine and terminology. Difficulties and differences will arise (there is no growth without spirit-wrought effort and conflict), but the rewards will be rich.
To change the fate of the faith and family in America, we must awake from our collective slumber, leave our old ways and turn to Christ, learn from godly ministers (even of old), train our children and desire the sincere meat of the Word--nothing less than an entire generation is at risk. Can you do less?
Three-percent.
Does that shock you? It shocks me—that’s my age group!
The Barna group statistics define a worldview as believing that “Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and he still rules it today,” salvation is a free gift of God, Satan is real, Christians should witness, the Bible is accurate and the source of moral, absolute truth (unChristian, p.75).
What does this mean for the faith, the family and the future?
First of all, it means the objective content (faith) of Evangelicals is rapidly disappearing. Without the Biblical worldview as the guiding principle of millions of Christian’s lives, wrong decisions and actions will increase; holiness will decrease. Churches will become businesses and entertainment centers. Truth will die by a thousand qualifications. And more importantly, we will shame Christ.
Second, the Christian family will crumble. Religious speak will still exist, but it will be hollow and mechanical. Families may act Christian but believe falsehood. Parents will live and act in ignorance of Biblical truth. Children will be swallowed whole by cults and outright unbelief. Generations will be lost.
Third, (and I speak as a man) the future will be lost—the future of America at any rate. We are even now seeing that loss. As the culture goes so goes the nation; and as the churches go so goes the culture. Culture is religion externalized.
“Why did this happen? What can I do?” you may ask.
Hosea 4:6 is God’s warning to those who know Him but do not know Him: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…”
Strong but true words. American churches and families must take it to heart. It is certainly not the case that conservative Christians as a whole are purposefully trying to avoid more knowledge of God and His Word. It certainly is not that. Yet the statistics (from the last ten years at least) point to increased deviation from the Bible in principle and practice. Something is amiss.
Unfortunately, this is not all. Barna’s poll of born-again Christians shows that almost forty-percent believe “if a person is good enough” they can be saved. 57% of Evangelicals allow for other ways to heaven than solely through Christ (2008 Pew study). Even learning a “worldview” is for naught if the Gospel is missing from its foundation.
The Barna study should be a wake-up call. But it will not be a wake up call if no one takes it to heart. I take it to heart. It grieves me. Does it grieve you?
Although increasing in understanding and wisdom does not automatically bring salvation or even sanctification, it is certainly fundamental. Without proper knowledge there is no growth. How can the spiritual tree of your life increase in Christ if you don’t know the difference between rotten and healthy fruit?
Perhaps you have heard this all before. Do you believe it? In which case, continue the struggle, pray for a revival and continue to help your family and support faithful churches. Do you still doubt? Reread those statistics. Either way, take Hosea 4:6 to heart. Re-examine your beliefs in detail:
1. Who is God? Is He omnipotent, omniscient? So what?
2. What is sin? How extensive is sin? How does this impact my family?
3. Who is Christ? Was He sinless? Why is this important?
4. How are we saved? By works? What is faith alone? So what?
This is just the tip of the iceberg: for to simply define terms is not enough, we must know how they relate to other truths and why they are important in the Christian life. The admonition in Hosea is not to only have intellectual knowledge of God (is God really satisfied with that?)—no, Hosea wants us to know the what as well as the how and why.
Do you want to be the generation that was destroyed for a lack of knowledge? Do you want our churches to be bastions of Biblical truth, seminaries of in-depth learning that challenge your preconceptions? Or do we want to remain spiritual children feeding on milk instead of feeding upon solid food? (Heb. 5:12ff.)
The Reformation of Luther, Knox and Calvin began as a return to the Word of God, specifically the Gospel—both the knowledge and use of it. The First & Second Awakenings followed the exact same path. That means you have to get your hands dirty and dig into the rich soil of the Bible—learning theology, doctrine and terminology. Difficulties and differences will arise (there is no growth without spirit-wrought effort and conflict), but the rewards will be rich.
To change the fate of the faith and family in America, we must awake from our collective slumber, leave our old ways and turn to Christ, learn from godly ministers (even of old), train our children and desire the sincere meat of the Word--nothing less than an entire generation is at risk. Can you do less?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cursory Thoughts about "A Christian Education Manifesto"
Recently a commenter on this blog asked if I would evaluate Israel Wayne's A Christian Education Manifesto (here).
Instead of a thorough evaluation of this document (which would include an in-depth examination of the author's other works), I decided to mostly take it at face value: after all, is that not the intent of manifestos? To summarize to the world what one deems important.
At the outset, it ought to be noted that the manifesto is helpful in certain ways. Presumably he is writing against the many lazy parents in Christian households. The copious proof-texting (in both a good and bad sense) could help many of these families get their acts together. It also heavily critiques the secular public school system.
1. Upon a short examination of the writer's credentials, it is striking that a man with no known theological training and examination thought he could write such a broad-sweeping manifesto single-handedly. In the council of many there is wisdom.
2. Where is the church? With such a conspicuous absence of such an important institution in the lives of all family members the manifesto ought to be re-titled: A Christian Family Education Manifesto.
3. Although claiming a Biblical worldview background, it is not at all clear that listing Bible verses with minimal commentary suffices as a manifesto let alone something part of a worldview. In what ways are these unique (?) elements of a Christian worldview?
4. Unfortunately, this spartan commentary lends itself to absolutist language, e.g., "Instruction of the young is given to parents and grandparents."--only, mostly, what?
5. Exodus 20:12 section clearly speaks to the modernistic mentality in education but seems to impugn all "government" education (however vaguely defined). A knowledge of Christian history will demonstrate otherwise.
6. The same section essentially calls the early church, Medieval church and Reformation churches well into the late 1700s 'socialists'. This seems to be a more modernistic Libertarian viewpoint that bypasses any historical dialogue. I may be in favor of localism in education but I would hesitate to label all of Christian education history as 'socialistic'.
7. 2 Chronicles 17:7-10 clearly ties the kingship with the priest and lay-leader's educational efforts to good effect. At the least, one should cautiously evaluate such Biblical evidence before announcing broad-sweeping declamations.
8. The Deut. 6:7 comment is brief and thus vague: what is a "24/7/365 discipleship paradigm"? In some homeschooling circles such language and proof-texting leads to a "homeschooling-is-commanded-by-God" doctrine (or at least it is the best educational option [and who wouldn't want the best for God?]).
9. Common grace is a concept that appears to be decidedly missing in this document. "A Christian parent must not turn the leading of their child over to someone who is spiritually blind." So an unbelieving piano teacher cannot instruct my daughter? A better question is to ask what is the Biblical basis of this assertion [see comments for clarification by the author].
10. I am glad that the revisionist approach to history is renounced. Unfortunately, in most Christian circles such revisionism still exists in the form of a Deistic interpretation of history that downplays any theological distinctions in Christendom (hint: how many know that America was substantially founded by Calvinism?).
11. What was suspect earlier (that only parents may instruct their own children) is now made explicit: "It is assumed that the father and mother are doing the teaching. No one else is mentioned in Scripture as having that role." No one else...not even ministers? godly deacons? what about catechizing children?
12. This leads to a point about equivocation: what is the definition of education? nurture? etc.? Either no one can educate other people's children (contrary to the Bible) or the author is using more than one definition without informing the reader.
13. Apparently the OT plays a selective role, hence the absence of Deut. 30:9ff: "So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel...gather the people together, men and women and little ones...that they may hear and that they may learn to fear the LORD your God and carefully observe all the words of this law and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land which you cross the Jordan to possess." The Great Commission comes to mind as well.
14. There is curious logic here as well. Proverbs 9:10 is argued thusly: "Government schools lack the fear of the LORD,therefore cannot properly transmit wisdom, knowledge,and understanding." Just fill in ignorant or unfaithful parents in place of government schools and similar reasoning can be invoked.
15. Such family-centric emphasis makes good Reformed and Presbyterian (and old-fashioned Reformed Baptists) wonder about the educational, modeling and instructional role of the whole community of God? Does not Titus 2 encourage the older women (no mention of mother here) to instruct the younger women. By commonality of principle (LCQ 99) the same would hold for men and boys.
16. A misunderstanding of statistics is a common problem in America. In this case the 65-88% number does not include the actual training accomplished (or not accomplished) at home and at church. If the families and churches are weak, then sending the child to college is a dangerous thing indeed.
17. The point about leaders leading by example with the training of their children is much needed. However, too many Christians ignore such leaders anyway, seeking out popular leaders or (inexperienced) young men with young children.
18. "Education must be predicated on the foundation of Christ, not on humanistic thought." AMEN.
19. Unfortunately, since this manifesto is not clearly Reformed, it is not clearly "predicated on the foundation of Christ." Calvinistic education is different than the run-of-the-mill education.
20. In fact, this manifesto supplements the author's more explicit teaching in Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview. One glaring problem in that book is a dangerous dance with legalism: "If parents focus on giving their children a Biblical worldview, I can assure you, their children will excel in everything they do. It's that natural cause and effect of the blessing of God. When we obey, we are blessed; we we don't, we are cursed" (p. 150, cp. 43, 13).
This is the moral summary of the author's approach--implicit in this document but explicit in his book.
The explicit Gospel message that we cannot obey and are cursed already is missing. Christians are sinners saved by grace so that even when we 'obey' we do not 'obey' enough to cause any blessing (Rom. 7:12ff.). If such a message is not the cornerstone of Christian education then Christian children will either grow up hypocrites or renounce the faith in anger as too many already do.
Instead of a thorough evaluation of this document (which would include an in-depth examination of the author's other works), I decided to mostly take it at face value: after all, is that not the intent of manifestos? To summarize to the world what one deems important.
At the outset, it ought to be noted that the manifesto is helpful in certain ways. Presumably he is writing against the many lazy parents in Christian households. The copious proof-texting (in both a good and bad sense) could help many of these families get their acts together. It also heavily critiques the secular public school system.
1. Upon a short examination of the writer's credentials, it is striking that a man with no known theological training and examination thought he could write such a broad-sweeping manifesto single-handedly. In the council of many there is wisdom.
2. Where is the church? With such a conspicuous absence of such an important institution in the lives of all family members the manifesto ought to be re-titled: A Christian Family Education Manifesto.
3. Although claiming a Biblical worldview background, it is not at all clear that listing Bible verses with minimal commentary suffices as a manifesto let alone something part of a worldview. In what ways are these unique (?) elements of a Christian worldview?
4. Unfortunately, this spartan commentary lends itself to absolutist language, e.g., "Instruction of the young is given to parents and grandparents."--only, mostly, what?
5. Exodus 20:12 section clearly speaks to the modernistic mentality in education but seems to impugn all "government" education (however vaguely defined). A knowledge of Christian history will demonstrate otherwise.
6. The same section essentially calls the early church, Medieval church and Reformation churches well into the late 1700s 'socialists'. This seems to be a more modernistic Libertarian viewpoint that bypasses any historical dialogue. I may be in favor of localism in education but I would hesitate to label all of Christian education history as 'socialistic'.
7. 2 Chronicles 17:7-10 clearly ties the kingship with the priest and lay-leader's educational efforts to good effect. At the least, one should cautiously evaluate such Biblical evidence before announcing broad-sweeping declamations.
8. The Deut. 6:7 comment is brief and thus vague: what is a "24/7/365 discipleship paradigm"? In some homeschooling circles such language and proof-texting leads to a "homeschooling-is-commanded-by-God" doctrine (or at least it is the best educational option [and who wouldn't want the best for God?]).
9. Common grace is a concept that appears to be decidedly missing in this document. "A Christian parent must not turn the leading of their child over to someone who is spiritually blind." So an unbelieving piano teacher cannot instruct my daughter? A better question is to ask what is the Biblical basis of this assertion [see comments for clarification by the author].
10. I am glad that the revisionist approach to history is renounced. Unfortunately, in most Christian circles such revisionism still exists in the form of a Deistic interpretation of history that downplays any theological distinctions in Christendom (hint: how many know that America was substantially founded by Calvinism?).
11. What was suspect earlier (that only parents may instruct their own children) is now made explicit: "It is assumed that the father and mother are doing the teaching. No one else is mentioned in Scripture as having that role." No one else...not even ministers? godly deacons? what about catechizing children?
12. This leads to a point about equivocation: what is the definition of education? nurture? etc.? Either no one can educate other people's children (contrary to the Bible) or the author is using more than one definition without informing the reader.
13. Apparently the OT plays a selective role, hence the absence of Deut. 30:9ff: "So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel...gather the people together, men and women and little ones...that they may hear and that they may learn to fear the LORD your God and carefully observe all the words of this law and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land which you cross the Jordan to possess." The Great Commission comes to mind as well.
14. There is curious logic here as well. Proverbs 9:10 is argued thusly: "Government schools lack the fear of the LORD,therefore cannot properly transmit wisdom, knowledge,and understanding." Just fill in ignorant or unfaithful parents in place of government schools and similar reasoning can be invoked.
15. Such family-centric emphasis makes good Reformed and Presbyterian (and old-fashioned Reformed Baptists) wonder about the educational, modeling and instructional role of the whole community of God? Does not Titus 2 encourage the older women (no mention of mother here) to instruct the younger women. By commonality of principle (LCQ 99) the same would hold for men and boys.
16. A misunderstanding of statistics is a common problem in America. In this case the 65-88% number does not include the actual training accomplished (or not accomplished) at home and at church. If the families and churches are weak, then sending the child to college is a dangerous thing indeed.
17. The point about leaders leading by example with the training of their children is much needed. However, too many Christians ignore such leaders anyway, seeking out popular leaders or (inexperienced) young men with young children.
18. "Education must be predicated on the foundation of Christ, not on humanistic thought." AMEN.
19. Unfortunately, since this manifesto is not clearly Reformed, it is not clearly "predicated on the foundation of Christ." Calvinistic education is different than the run-of-the-mill education.
20. In fact, this manifesto supplements the author's more explicit teaching in Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview. One glaring problem in that book is a dangerous dance with legalism: "If parents focus on giving their children a Biblical worldview, I can assure you, their children will excel in everything they do. It's that natural cause and effect of the blessing of God. When we obey, we are blessed; we we don't, we are cursed" (p. 150, cp. 43, 13).
This is the moral summary of the author's approach--implicit in this document but explicit in his book.
The explicit Gospel message that we cannot obey and are cursed already is missing. Christians are sinners saved by grace so that even when we 'obey' we do not 'obey' enough to cause any blessing (Rom. 7:12ff.). If such a message is not the cornerstone of Christian education then Christian children will either grow up hypocrites or renounce the faith in anger as too many already do.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Year of Calvinism: Consequences I
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
Santayana
Santayana
Ideas have consequences. And these consequences are the fruits of history.
What has the history of Western Civilization taught the modern and postmodern man? Not much.
What has this same history taught many in the church? Very little it seems.
The reason for this is likely to be found in the wide-spread ignorance of such God-glorifying history. Americans especially are a-historical or even anti-history. Do we not make our own future? Why listen to the past?
Yet if ideas have consequences then history does have something to teach us. And in this Year of Calvinism it has much to teach the American churches. For Calvinism not only helped break the back of the Romish church (along side her Lutheran brethren), she became the ground-swell for political and social renewal.
Historically, the modern world--Modernity--began with the Reformation. Now more historians are publicly acknowledging what their older predecessors already knew: the substantive impact of Calvinism in history.
One recent book, The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe (Gorski), is an in-depth analysis of the social and political fortunes of two 17th-century European countries mostly influenced by Calvinists: Holland & Prussia. His understated conclusion is that the self- and communal-discipline (and theological underpinnings) of Calvinism greatly sustained and strengthened the cultural and political dimensions of these nations.
Another book, The Covenant Connection: From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism, is a collection of essays from various university professors exploring the Protestant roots of the modern democracies. It is Calvinism in particular that propagated the covenant idea as a social tool for greater good. From resistance to tyrants to state constitutions, the Reformers and their offspring substantially originated and expanded economical, social and political freedoms.
More significantly is the overwhelming acknowledgment that doctrine played a more significant role in the development of the modern era than previously admitted. Naturally, Christians should already believe that. In particular, the Reformational doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone was the pivot upon which societies moved from Medieval death to modern life.
Wherever man is the question of his individual standing before the Judge of the universe is forefront. How can I be saved? is the perennial question of the ages. Is salvation through law--mine, God's, the state's--or through faith? If the former, then wherever I am in life I turn that work or thought into an idol to save me. If the latter, then wherever I am in life I turn over to the Lord.
That is why the doctrine of salvation is so crucial: whatever man is doing right now will be impacted by his view of salvation. And that includes economics, science and politics...
“It is into Calvinism that the Modern world strikes its roots. For it is Calvinism which first reveals the dignity and worth of man. Called of God, heir of heaven, the merchant in his shop and the peasant in his field suddenly became the equal of noble and king."
John Richard Green, History of the English People
John Richard Green, History of the English People
The famous German economist, Max Weber, proposed the connection between Christianity and Free Market labor almost one hundred years ago in The Protestant Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism. In particular, he noted the industriousness of the Puritans (Calvinists one and all) as an incentive that helped fuel Capitalism. Their sense of Christian vocation for any lawful endeavor in life coupled with their sobriety, thrift, stewardship and high ethics contributed greatly.
Furthermore, the Reformers allowed the proper use of interest for money (contrary to Romish practice) and the accumulation of wealth for families and their children’s children. This further stimulated capitalism.
"Without question, the doctrine of Calvin, in so far as it concerns lending at interest, ran counter to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. This was because Calvin did not believe in barriers between the spiritual and the temporal: he considered work and the serious exercise of a profession as praiseworthy, and therefore accepted the acquisition of riches as legitimate…" (Sée, Modern Capitalism)
Since the kingdom of God was wherever the Christian’s vocation in life was, those lawful activities of work and recreation were sanctified unto God. Wealth was not wrong if used for God. Even with no biblical guarantee of prosperity, the believer knew that the biblical ideals of hard work and thrift generally lead to plenitude. With an increase in money help for the poor increased. They were simultaneously providing for their family and loving their neighbor.
Historian, Lewis Spitz summarized thusly:
“…by instilling into the laboring classes a view of life that raises work from drudgery to a source of self-respect, Protestantism and especially Calvinism helped to build up a group of productive and reliable people, a solid base for a capitalistic society.” (The Renaissance & Reformation Movements, Vol. II, p. 557)
The believer was economically free.
[Recent books include:
The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism
The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe
Revolution & Religion: American Revolutionary War & the Reformed Clergy
The Covenant Connection: From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism
Law & Revolution II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformation on the Western Legal Tradition ]
(read more here)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Bubble Will Burst
In conservative circles there has been much talk about the economic bubble--that artificially inflated economy of debt. And the leadership in Washington is making it worse by not telling the whole truth about the dangers of excessive debt-spending.
When the economy goes too far with hype and lies it will burst, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in economic ruin.
Just like in the churches.
For decades, the American religion has been prosperity and too many churches have jumped on that bandwagon. And it is not just economic prosperity that is taught. Many churches and social leaders teach different types of prosperity: personal charm, social status, familial superiority and spiritual perfection.
This artificially inflated bubble of super-spirituality--the hype and lies--will burst, leaving hundreds of thousands of Christians in spiritual ruin.
May good churches with good doctrine and practice, be there to pick up the pieces.
When the economy goes too far with hype and lies it will burst, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in economic ruin.
Just like in the churches.
For decades, the American religion has been prosperity and too many churches have jumped on that bandwagon. And it is not just economic prosperity that is taught. Many churches and social leaders teach different types of prosperity: personal charm, social status, familial superiority and spiritual perfection.
This artificially inflated bubble of super-spirituality--the hype and lies--will burst, leaving hundreds of thousands of Christians in spiritual ruin.
May good churches with good doctrine and practice, be there to pick up the pieces.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009
Year of Calvinism: America's First Black Poet
Jupiter Hammon (1711-1806?) was the first black poet published in America. Considered the father of African-American poetry, on Christmas of 1760 he published, “An Evening Thought. Salvation by Christ with Penitential Cries.” He was also a “committed Calvinist versifier,” rejoicing in the redemption found in Christ instead of dwelling on his condition of slavery (The Journey Back, 5).
Although not much is known about him, his story is beautiful nonetheless. Near the end of his life he spoke to a convention of blacks in New York (late 1786). Here are some soul-searching comments from a man who lived his whole life as a slave to man but was never a slave to the world, the flesh or the Devil:
“The apostle Paul says, 'Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in singleness in your heart as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatever thing a man doeth the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.' -- Here is a plain command of God for us to obey our masters. It may seem hard for us… If you are proud and stubborn and always finding fault, your master will think the fault lies wholly on your side, but if you are humble, and meek, and bear all things patiently, your master may think he is wrong, if he does not, his neighbours will be apt to see it, and will befriend you, and try to alter his conduct. If this does not do, you must cry to Him, who has the hearts of all men in his hands, and turneth them as the rivers of waters are turned.
“Getting our liberty in this world, is nothing to our having the liberty of the children of God. Now the Bible tells us that we are all by nature, sinners, that we are slaves to sin and Satan, and that unless we are converted, or born again, we must be miserable forever. Christ says, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, and all that do not see the kingdom of God, must be in the kingdom of darkness… Now you may think you are not enemies to God, and do not hate him: But if your heart has not been changed, and you have not become true Christians, you certainly are enemies to God, and have been opposed to him ever since you were born… The Bible is a revelation of the mind and will of God to men. Therein we may learn, what God is. That he made all things by the power of his word; and that he made all things for his own glory, and not for our glory. That he is over all, and above all his creatures, and more above them that we can think or conceive -- that they can do nothing without him -- that he upholds them all, and will over-rule all things for his own glory. In the Bible likewise we are told what man is. That he was at first made holy, in the image of God, that he fell from that state of holiness, and became an enemy to God, and that since the fall, all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart, are evil and only evil, and that continually. That the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. And that all mankind, were under the wrath, and curse of God, and must have been for ever miserable, if they had been left to suffer what their sins deserved. It tells us that God, to save some of mankind, sent his Son into this world to die, in the room and stead of sinners, and that now God can save from eternal misery, all that believe in his Son, and take him for their saviour, and that all are called upon to repent, and believe in Jesus Christ.
“If we should ever get to Heaven, we shall find nobody to reproach us for being black, or for being slaves. Let me beg of you my dear African brethren, to think very little of your bondage in this life, for your thinking of it will do you no good. If God designs to set us free, he will do it, in his own time, and way; but think of your bondage to sin and Satan, and do not rest, until you are delivered from it. We cannot be happy if we are ever so free or ever so rich, while we are servants of sin, and slaves to Satan. We must be miserable here, and to all eternity, I will conclude what I have to say with a few words to those negroes who have their liberty. The most of what I have said to those who are slaves may be of use to you, but you have more advantages, on some accounts, if you will improve your freedom, as you may do, than they. You have more time to read God's holy word, and to take care of the salvation of your souls. Let me beg of you to spend your time in this way, or it will be better for you, if you had always been slaves. If you think seriously of the matter, you must conclude, that if you do not use your freedom, to promote the salvation of your souls, it will not be of any lasting good to you.”
Although not much is known about him, his story is beautiful nonetheless. Near the end of his life he spoke to a convention of blacks in New York (late 1786). Here are some soul-searching comments from a man who lived his whole life as a slave to man but was never a slave to the world, the flesh or the Devil:
“The apostle Paul says, 'Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in singleness in your heart as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatever thing a man doeth the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.' -- Here is a plain command of God for us to obey our masters. It may seem hard for us… If you are proud and stubborn and always finding fault, your master will think the fault lies wholly on your side, but if you are humble, and meek, and bear all things patiently, your master may think he is wrong, if he does not, his neighbours will be apt to see it, and will befriend you, and try to alter his conduct. If this does not do, you must cry to Him, who has the hearts of all men in his hands, and turneth them as the rivers of waters are turned.
“Getting our liberty in this world, is nothing to our having the liberty of the children of God. Now the Bible tells us that we are all by nature, sinners, that we are slaves to sin and Satan, and that unless we are converted, or born again, we must be miserable forever. Christ says, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, and all that do not see the kingdom of God, must be in the kingdom of darkness… Now you may think you are not enemies to God, and do not hate him: But if your heart has not been changed, and you have not become true Christians, you certainly are enemies to God, and have been opposed to him ever since you were born… The Bible is a revelation of the mind and will of God to men. Therein we may learn, what God is. That he made all things by the power of his word; and that he made all things for his own glory, and not for our glory. That he is over all, and above all his creatures, and more above them that we can think or conceive -- that they can do nothing without him -- that he upholds them all, and will over-rule all things for his own glory. In the Bible likewise we are told what man is. That he was at first made holy, in the image of God, that he fell from that state of holiness, and became an enemy to God, and that since the fall, all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart, are evil and only evil, and that continually. That the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. And that all mankind, were under the wrath, and curse of God, and must have been for ever miserable, if they had been left to suffer what their sins deserved. It tells us that God, to save some of mankind, sent his Son into this world to die, in the room and stead of sinners, and that now God can save from eternal misery, all that believe in his Son, and take him for their saviour, and that all are called upon to repent, and believe in Jesus Christ.
“If we should ever get to Heaven, we shall find nobody to reproach us for being black, or for being slaves. Let me beg of you my dear African brethren, to think very little of your bondage in this life, for your thinking of it will do you no good. If God designs to set us free, he will do it, in his own time, and way; but think of your bondage to sin and Satan, and do not rest, until you are delivered from it. We cannot be happy if we are ever so free or ever so rich, while we are servants of sin, and slaves to Satan. We must be miserable here, and to all eternity, I will conclude what I have to say with a few words to those negroes who have their liberty. The most of what I have said to those who are slaves may be of use to you, but you have more advantages, on some accounts, if you will improve your freedom, as you may do, than they. You have more time to read God's holy word, and to take care of the salvation of your souls. Let me beg of you to spend your time in this way, or it will be better for you, if you had always been slaves. If you think seriously of the matter, you must conclude, that if you do not use your freedom, to promote the salvation of your souls, it will not be of any lasting good to you.”
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A Story About Scholarship
As I traveled the road from general Arminian, Charismatic Dispensationalism to old-school Calvinistic Presbyterianism, I learned discernment.
I realized that if my view of my own precious salvation was wrong, then my general view of the Bible was probably wrong...and it was.
I then concluded that if my general view of the Bible and what it taught was wrong, then maybe the teachers instructing me were wrong on other counts...and they were.
Yet I did not decide to distrust everyone, but to be more cautious. After all, those who were wrong were wrong mostly due to ignorance.
As I traveled the road from rudimentary knowledge of history and science to fuller knowledge, understanding and application through a combination of church mentoring and collegiate training, I learned scholarship.
I discovered that scholarship involved paying close attention to detail, perseverance of investigation and discernment of fact from fiction. I also learned the language of scholarship.
I first stumbled upon these lessons the hard way with a college speech course in which I was called upon to defend homeschooling. Gathering my resources from fellow Christians striving to interpret life by the Word of God, I thought myself fully furnished for the battle. But alas, I was not. To the extent I rested my weight upon the historicity given me to that extent I stumbled. Significant points of my presentation were wrong. Some of the famous men I thought were homeschooled were not.
My teacher was kind enough to tell me I was wrong.
It got worse. As I asked around about books on the history of homeschooling, I found there were none, but that there were one or two books that included a page or two. I found one such book covering a multitude of reasons to homeschool, with an entire chapter on its history. Combining the lessons of discernment and scholarship I discovered major errors.
How? by actually checking the sources. I was kind enough to mail the gentlemen the documented corrections.
Later, other claims came my way. So I checked the sources.
I concluded the research on homeschooling academic success has been blown out of proportion to the actual claims from the research itself. The famous Rudner study was read and read carefully. Rudner noted his studies limitation within the first paragraph.
Then someone else kindly pointed me to the scholarly work of Dr. Brain Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Being a well-trained man, his research was conscious of its own serious limitations from the start:
1. "The design of most research to date does not allow for the conclusion that homeschooling necessarily causes higher academic achievement or better social and emotional development than does public (or private) institutional schooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, Dr. Ray, online)
[Translation: Most studies are not even designed to prove the academic superiority of homeschooling]
2. "Some of these scholars have also, rightfully pointed out the limitations of their studies. For example, Ray (2000b) 'This is not a causal-comparative study….background variables in this ex post facto study are not controlled in such a way as to make possible conclusions about the causes of academic achievement test scores being higher (or lower) than those of students in conventional schools' and 'one should keep in mind the limitations of representativeness and generalizability' in this study (p. 81). ("A Homeschool Research Story," Homeschooling in Full View, Dr. Ray, p. 10)
[Translation: Even Dr. Ray's own study admits it does not prove homeschooling superiority]
3. "Despite the fact that scholars who have conducted the studies have not claimed that research shows homeschooling causes higher achievement (or healthier social and emotional development), others have attempted to use research to obliquely attack both researchers of and advocates of homeschooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, online)
[Translation: Dr. Ray and others have never claimed their studies proved that homeschooling caused higher test scores, but people still attack us personally]
What does all this tell us? It tells us that Dr. Ray carefully noted in his own research that his own studies do not and could not scientifically demonstrate that homeschooling caused better academic achievement than either public or private schooling. In fact, the studies could not and did not create any sort of across-the-board baseline to make such a comparison--one cannot compare apples with peaches. (This is partly so because the studies were voluntary; public school testing is not voluntary.)
At the end of the day, after my bad experience with so-called scholarship in theology and history, I find it refreshing that Christian men such as Dr. Ray state explicitly (although in scholarly language) the severe limitations of their own studies. I do not have to check their sources.
As I travel the road of the Christian life, my prayer is that more Christians will learn my story.
SDG
I realized that if my view of my own precious salvation was wrong, then my general view of the Bible was probably wrong...and it was.
I then concluded that if my general view of the Bible and what it taught was wrong, then maybe the teachers instructing me were wrong on other counts...and they were.
Yet I did not decide to distrust everyone, but to be more cautious. After all, those who were wrong were wrong mostly due to ignorance.
As I traveled the road from rudimentary knowledge of history and science to fuller knowledge, understanding and application through a combination of church mentoring and collegiate training, I learned scholarship.
I discovered that scholarship involved paying close attention to detail, perseverance of investigation and discernment of fact from fiction. I also learned the language of scholarship.
I first stumbled upon these lessons the hard way with a college speech course in which I was called upon to defend homeschooling. Gathering my resources from fellow Christians striving to interpret life by the Word of God, I thought myself fully furnished for the battle. But alas, I was not. To the extent I rested my weight upon the historicity given me to that extent I stumbled. Significant points of my presentation were wrong. Some of the famous men I thought were homeschooled were not.
My teacher was kind enough to tell me I was wrong.
It got worse. As I asked around about books on the history of homeschooling, I found there were none, but that there were one or two books that included a page or two. I found one such book covering a multitude of reasons to homeschool, with an entire chapter on its history. Combining the lessons of discernment and scholarship I discovered major errors.
How? by actually checking the sources. I was kind enough to mail the gentlemen the documented corrections.
Later, other claims came my way. So I checked the sources.
I concluded the research on homeschooling academic success has been blown out of proportion to the actual claims from the research itself. The famous Rudner study was read and read carefully. Rudner noted his studies limitation within the first paragraph.
Then someone else kindly pointed me to the scholarly work of Dr. Brain Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Being a well-trained man, his research was conscious of its own serious limitations from the start:
1. "The design of most research to date does not allow for the conclusion that homeschooling necessarily causes higher academic achievement or better social and emotional development than does public (or private) institutional schooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, Dr. Ray, online)
[Translation: Most studies are not even designed to prove the academic superiority of homeschooling]
2. "Some of these scholars have also, rightfully pointed out the limitations of their studies. For example, Ray (2000b) 'This is not a causal-comparative study….background variables in this ex post facto study are not controlled in such a way as to make possible conclusions about the causes of academic achievement test scores being higher (or lower) than those of students in conventional schools' and 'one should keep in mind the limitations of representativeness and generalizability' in this study (p. 81). ("A Homeschool Research Story," Homeschooling in Full View, Dr. Ray, p. 10)
[Translation: Even Dr. Ray's own study admits it does not prove homeschooling superiority]
3. "Despite the fact that scholars who have conducted the studies have not claimed that research shows homeschooling causes higher achievement (or healthier social and emotional development), others have attempted to use research to obliquely attack both researchers of and advocates of homeschooling." ("The Evidence Is So Positive", The Old Schoolhouse, online)
[Translation: Dr. Ray and others have never claimed their studies proved that homeschooling caused higher test scores, but people still attack us personally]
What does all this tell us? It tells us that Dr. Ray carefully noted in his own research that his own studies do not and could not scientifically demonstrate that homeschooling caused better academic achievement than either public or private schooling. In fact, the studies could not and did not create any sort of across-the-board baseline to make such a comparison--one cannot compare apples with peaches. (This is partly so because the studies were voluntary; public school testing is not voluntary.)
At the end of the day, after my bad experience with so-called scholarship in theology and history, I find it refreshing that Christian men such as Dr. Ray state explicitly (although in scholarly language) the severe limitations of their own studies. I do not have to check their sources.
As I travel the road of the Christian life, my prayer is that more Christians will learn my story.
SDG
Friday, August 07, 2009
Year of Calvinism: America's First Black Preacher
Lemuel Haynes:
(1753-1833)
1) First black pastor ordained by a mainstream American Protestant church.
2) First black pastor for a white church.
He was born in Connecticut of a "a white woman of respectable ancestry" and an African father; he was abandoned by them. He grew up indentured until the age of 21. Although of limited education, he read voraciously, especially the Bible and theology books.
He became a Minuteman for the Revolutionary War. Then he was ordained amongst the Congregationalists (1780), serving three congregations until his death at the age of 80. He married. He wrote against slavery. And he was a vocal defender of the ancient ways: Republicanism and Calvinism.
Yes, Calvinism. Later when the newer class of anti-slavery ministers arose, they would try to use his legacy but gave up since his Calvinism would not dovetail with their liberal theology. He publicly preached against the new (now old) theology of universal salvation.
Ironically, his anti-slavery position was one of racial integration instead of the then popular view (amongst even white anti-slavery proponents) of sending them to Africa (supposedly a land of freedom). The introduction of the new biography sums up the entire matter better than I:
“Like a number of other eighteenth-century black authors...Haynes accepted a Calvinist form of Christianity. Indeed, Calvinism seems to have corroborated the deepest structuring elements of the experience of such men and women as they matured from children living in slavery or servitude into adults desiring freedom, literacy, and membership in a fair society. From Calvinism, this generation of black authors drew a vision of God at work providentially in the lives of black people, directing their suffering yet promising the faithful among them a restoration to his favor and his presence. Not until around 1815 would African American authors, such as John Jea, explicitly declare themselves against Calvinism and for free-will religion. By the standard of many in the twenty-first century, this Calvinist vision may seem tainted, since it presented God’s hand in evil as well as in good. Moreover, this black Calvinism scorned Islam …Acknowledging the divine providence both of evil and of good, these black Calvinists insisted upon the human obligation to shun sin…and to further God’s benevolent design. More than any of his peers, black or white, Haynes found in Calvinism a tradition of exegesis that could be leveled against the slave trade and slavery...By 1830, a new abolitionist exegesis was undoing the ideal of interracial unity that Haynes and his peers had seen in the Bible.” (Sallant, 4, 6)
If we are to have politically correct history months, let us at least pick our own heroes!
SDG
[More details:
Online biography: Sketches of... Rev. Lemuel Haynes.
Saillant, John. Black Puritan, Black Republican: The life and thought of Lemuel Haynes]
This is a Providence Points eNewsletter article--like it? Then join the email newsletter today!
(1753-1833)
1) First black pastor ordained by a mainstream American Protestant church.
2) First black pastor for a white church.
He was born in Connecticut of a "a white woman of respectable ancestry" and an African father; he was abandoned by them. He grew up indentured until the age of 21. Although of limited education, he read voraciously, especially the Bible and theology books.
He became a Minuteman for the Revolutionary War. Then he was ordained amongst the Congregationalists (1780), serving three congregations until his death at the age of 80. He married. He wrote against slavery. And he was a vocal defender of the ancient ways: Republicanism and Calvinism.
Yes, Calvinism. Later when the newer class of anti-slavery ministers arose, they would try to use his legacy but gave up since his Calvinism would not dovetail with their liberal theology. He publicly preached against the new (now old) theology of universal salvation.
Ironically, his anti-slavery position was one of racial integration instead of the then popular view (amongst even white anti-slavery proponents) of sending them to Africa (supposedly a land of freedom). The introduction of the new biography sums up the entire matter better than I:
“Like a number of other eighteenth-century black authors...Haynes accepted a Calvinist form of Christianity. Indeed, Calvinism seems to have corroborated the deepest structuring elements of the experience of such men and women as they matured from children living in slavery or servitude into adults desiring freedom, literacy, and membership in a fair society. From Calvinism, this generation of black authors drew a vision of God at work providentially in the lives of black people, directing their suffering yet promising the faithful among them a restoration to his favor and his presence. Not until around 1815 would African American authors, such as John Jea, explicitly declare themselves against Calvinism and for free-will religion. By the standard of many in the twenty-first century, this Calvinist vision may seem tainted, since it presented God’s hand in evil as well as in good. Moreover, this black Calvinism scorned Islam …Acknowledging the divine providence both of evil and of good, these black Calvinists insisted upon the human obligation to shun sin…and to further God’s benevolent design. More than any of his peers, black or white, Haynes found in Calvinism a tradition of exegesis that could be leveled against the slave trade and slavery...By 1830, a new abolitionist exegesis was undoing the ideal of interracial unity that Haynes and his peers had seen in the Bible.” (Sallant, 4, 6)
If we are to have politically correct history months, let us at least pick our own heroes!
SDG
[More details:
Online biography: Sketches of... Rev. Lemuel Haynes.
Saillant, John. Black Puritan, Black Republican: The life and thought of Lemuel Haynes]
This is a Providence Points eNewsletter article--like it? Then join the email newsletter today!
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
America Uncovered
On the Today Show this morning the hosts interviewed two next generation Americans: a photographer who snapshots publicly naked women and a woman who likes to be exposed.
Apparently, the photographer asked women to take their tops off while he took snapshots of them in public locales. The women he picked off the street claimed to feel "liberated" and "free".
Christianity teaches that nakedness has at least a two-fold significance: intimacy and sin. Intimacy is within the context of marriage and pictures our closeness with Christ (Eph. 5:29-32). With these women running around naked amongst strangers, it is safe to say it was not an intimate moment. Rather, it was a wanton display of sin.
Our physical nakedness mirrors our spiritual nakedness. Blushing is an inbred reflex of that fact. And it is rooted in our depraved natures. Our consciences know we sin and we excuse or accuse each other accordingly (Rom. 2:15).
And the excuse these people used was "liberation". It felt wonderful to disregard what they know to be wrong. It felt "free" to vaunt their pride publicly. Public nakedness is but spiritual nakedness without shame.
This is nothing new. Our advertisements, movies and books have been filled with people baring themselves for a few decades; this is only the next logical step.
And it is only a symptom. America's true nakedness is her naked disregard for God's Law. And her insistence that she can disrobe herself before God's tribunal without fear of retribution. She has forgotten the God of her youth and seeks out other gods to satisfy her lusts. America is not ashamed of her willful sin against the Most High, basking bare before her Judge without the righteous robe of Christ Jesus to cover her.
May God strengthen his church in America to stand against such spiritual pride. May the church preach the Law to expose America's self-righteousness.
Apparently, the photographer asked women to take their tops off while he took snapshots of them in public locales. The women he picked off the street claimed to feel "liberated" and "free".
Christianity teaches that nakedness has at least a two-fold significance: intimacy and sin. Intimacy is within the context of marriage and pictures our closeness with Christ (Eph. 5:29-32). With these women running around naked amongst strangers, it is safe to say it was not an intimate moment. Rather, it was a wanton display of sin.
Our physical nakedness mirrors our spiritual nakedness. Blushing is an inbred reflex of that fact. And it is rooted in our depraved natures. Our consciences know we sin and we excuse or accuse each other accordingly (Rom. 2:15).
And the excuse these people used was "liberation". It felt wonderful to disregard what they know to be wrong. It felt "free" to vaunt their pride publicly. Public nakedness is but spiritual nakedness without shame.
This is nothing new. Our advertisements, movies and books have been filled with people baring themselves for a few decades; this is only the next logical step.
And it is only a symptom. America's true nakedness is her naked disregard for God's Law. And her insistence that she can disrobe herself before God's tribunal without fear of retribution. She has forgotten the God of her youth and seeks out other gods to satisfy her lusts. America is not ashamed of her willful sin against the Most High, basking bare before her Judge without the righteous robe of Christ Jesus to cover her.
May God strengthen his church in America to stand against such spiritual pride. May the church preach the Law to expose America's self-righteousness.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Money for Homeschooling Will Fix America
I received a letter begging for money. But the begging was couched in less beggarly-language than other letters. It painted a gloomy socio-political picture of America's woes. Clearly things are moving from bad to worse.
But (the letter continued) there is hope for such abysmal times as this!
Homeschooling!
That "Christ-centered education, one-on-one discipleship, and the liberating principle of individuality." Of which very "few political leaders, schools, media sources, or even churches that would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling."
Movements abound, draining time, money and energy for the small faithful churches that fall under their shadows. They don't get the same promotional power of homeschooling. And apparently very few churches would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling--and that is a good thing. They ought rather encourage something as transformational as the Gospel.
On the other hand, homeschooling is on the rise. Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon. It is now a cultural phenomenon. And it does change lives--but then so do many other things in life.
What will change the world for the better? What is a veritable reformation of life? What is the hope for the future?
The Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And that Gospel is found in faithful churches with uncompromising pastors and zealous members--whether they homeschool or not.
Want to change the world, to have a better place for your children, to contribute to something healthy, strong and growing?!
Then support the Gospel. Join a Reformed church. A Calvinist church. Give them your money. Pray. Fast. Use the means of grace in conscious realization of your unworthiness.
And pray the Lord of the Harvest to come with power and grace.
But (the letter continued) there is hope for such abysmal times as this!
Homeschooling!
That "Christ-centered education, one-on-one discipleship, and the liberating principle of individuality." Of which very "few political leaders, schools, media sources, or even churches that would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling."
Movements abound, draining time, money and energy for the small faithful churches that fall under their shadows. They don't get the same promotional power of homeschooling. And apparently very few churches would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling--and that is a good thing. They ought rather encourage something as transformational as the Gospel.
On the other hand, homeschooling is on the rise. Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon. It is now a cultural phenomenon. And it does change lives--but then so do many other things in life.
What will change the world for the better? What is a veritable reformation of life? What is the hope for the future?
The Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And that Gospel is found in faithful churches with uncompromising pastors and zealous members--whether they homeschool or not.
Want to change the world, to have a better place for your children, to contribute to something healthy, strong and growing?!
Then support the Gospel. Join a Reformed church. A Calvinist church. Give them your money. Pray. Fast. Use the means of grace in conscious realization of your unworthiness.
And pray the Lord of the Harvest to come with power and grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)