Sunday, February 5, 2012 2:30:40 PM
According to some experts, there are at least 6 different types of classical education models. Perhaps the most familiar to many is the Trivium method. I'd like to suggest in this essay that what is most important is not the particular shape or form of any one model, but certain basic principles that have to be in place for any educational model to work. I'm going to focus specifically on "liberal arts" type stuff, since I am singularly unqualified to talk about math and science, though I believe any decent program needs good stiff doses of both.
1) Kids have to be taught to read. I don't mean simply the mechanics of reading, though of course we start with that, but they have to be taught to read in depth. They have to be taught to understand what they are reading, and reflect on it based on a Christian worldview (remember, these essays are about Christian education). This requires the teacher to read with the students, to encourage them to think about what they are reading, and to guide their interpretation of the text. Will this bias the students? Absolutely. I would argue students can only begin to appreciate other viewpoints if they have a good, solid viewpoint to begin. In my own educational experience, teachers who tried to be broad and open about issues were often as bland as white rice and as nourishing as cardboard. Teachers who really believed something, even if I disagreed, were far more inspiring and informative.
Along with this, what the student reads is key. Looking over the curriculum for 7th and 8th graders when I was teaching a summer English course to those grade levels, I was singularly unimpressed with nearly all the choices recommended by various educational websites. Instead, why not read really good literature? I actually ended up doing "The War of the Worlds" with one group -- not only well written, but seminal science fiction. Many of our modern authors show their debt to previous generations of writers. Why not start our students with the source and foundation, rather than derivative materials?
Let me give one anecdotal example. I had a student who was quite taken with the Warhammer series. Not exactly "great" literature even by modern standards. I asked him about a current book in that series that he was reading. He commented that there was less action in the book than in others of the series, but a lot on the actual composition and politics of the galactic empire. I asked him, "Do you think you would appreciate that piece of it, if it weren't for what you had learned here through studying history and literature?" He replied, "I probably wouldn't like it at all, but you're right -- the galactic empire is really the Roman Empire writ large..." Now, that's a paraphrase of what he actually said, but true to the spirit of it. If he can do that with one novel, he can do it with many more, and not just novels.
Speaking of Classics, a thorough exposure to classical literature itself is essential to grasp the entire Western literary tradition. Now part of this is the biblical tradition -- biblical literacy is extremely important not only in its own right, but also for understanding the majority of literature penned in the Western world since the triumph of Christianity in late antiquity. Of nearly equal importance for the latter is the classical tradition, the actual writings produced in the ancient world. Homer, the Greek and Roman playwrights, Vergil, Cicero. Again, we cannot truly understand or appreciate the development of the Western Tradition apart from these and other authors of that period. How can we grasp the Founding Father's understanding of democracy unless we kow the Greeks and the signficiance of the Battle of Marathon? We cannot fully understand our modern world unless we understand how Augustus reformulated the Republic into the Empire. By analogy, the difference is between reading for surface understanding and reading in depth. Which we do we want the future leaders of our society to have?
Now, someone might object that "What you've said is fine, but isn't it sufficient simply to read these things in translation? Why bother learning Latin and Greek, I mean, that's so, like, 19th century..."
My complete answer will be in the next blog entry. Here, suffice it to say that while reading in translation is good, especially with a good teacher, learning the original languages brings benefits both immediate and long term, or, as the apostle Paul might say, "much in every way."
Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:20:38 PM
One of the major concerns of Greek philosophy, and we see this especially in Plato and Aristotle, is "the good." What constitutes the good? what is "the best" or "the highest good?" They explore this extensively, and in multiple contexts, such as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Book 8, in which he argues that only the truly good person can be a good friend.
What our ancient pagan philosophers didn't realize, however, is that the answer to their investigation could only be found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It could only be found in biblical revelation. Augustine, an individual very conversant with the Greek philosophical tradition, makes great capital out of this, pointing out in several places in his writings that it is the God of the Scriptures who is our summum bonum, our "highest good." No true goodness can be obtained apart from God and the grace of God offered through the Gospel.
Now, let's apply that fundamental truth to Christian education. Recently, I remember reading an article that complained how pervasive cheating was in the public schools, a far higher percentage than in the 1950's. My response was, pardon the expression, "no duh!" Public schools have long since abandoned any moral absolutes, and have modeled and taught moral relativity under various guises for decades now. Why are they surprised that their students take that teaching seriously, internalize it, and apply it to their own lives? Similarly with educational quality. If our educational philosophy has no ultimate goal or aim, if is has no absolute ground or foundation, then the quality of education will be socially conditioned. Preparing the student to succeed in society then becomes simple social engineering, and is subject to the subjective whims of those who have placed themselves in charge of the educational system. One only has to examine the many problems in most public schools to see the fruits of this. Thus, even in the best public schools, we find students watching movies every week during what could be prime academic time, or engaged in "projects" and "plays" to engage self learning. But how much learning is really happening during these times?
Now,in principle, Christian schools have all this beat hollow. Remember, only Christians have a shot at the highest good. Only Christians understand that this highest good is the ultimate goal of of the educational process, and only Christians have the Scriptures as the firm foundation for that process. Christians schools should provide not only a superior moral and spiritual environment, but a superior educational experience as well.
But what do we often get? I have found (and again, this is anecdotal) that often Christian schools are really simply an imitation of the government schools with a veneer of Christianity (sometimes thicker, sometimes thinner) applied. Curriculum looks suspiciously like what the kids would be getting down at PS 51 down the street, but they do have chapel and Bible classes...
Now, again, don't get me wrong, having chapel and Bible classes is a very good thing, but are we as Christian educators really striving for the highest good? Let me break this down -- striving for the highest good is only an abstraction unless we are endeavoring to do our best along the way. If the ladder to the top has defective rungs, how can we be sure of getting to the top? What we need to do is seriously rethink what we are really should be doing, from a biblical worldview, as opposed to what we are actually doing. If Christian schools are going to offer a truly superior product, not just morally and spiritually, but also educationally, then we need to make sure that our curriculum really matches the intended goal.
So, what constitutes this? What makes a superior curriculum? How does it break down to practical, day to day sorts of things? What makes the difference between training and social engineering and real education? Any ideas? Does anyone know of a Christian school that really does this? At the risk of sounding self-serving, I think The American Academy goes a long way toward doing so (or I wouldn't have my own children there as well as teaching there), but I'd really like to hear about more. Some of these questions I also plan to explore in future essays on this subject...
Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:36:36 PM
I plan to write a series of posts on Christian Education, K-12. This is something I have been involved with off and on since 1989, and especially now, teaching at the American Academy, where both my daughters also attend. I'd like to start with this question, and I'd like to invite responses:
Why is Christian education not one of the most important issues facing the church today?
Let me tell you where I'm coming from. My perspective is that of Cornelius Van Til and J. Gresham Machen, who saw the education of our covenant children as one of the most important tasks of the church, and saw just how important it was that this education take place within the covenant community. They saw, and I agree, that to entrust the education of future leaders and members of the church to those outside the covenant community was simply something that was completely wrong.
And yet, very few Christians seem to take this responsibility seriously today. Any number of church members, even pastors and elders, see little or no problem with sending their children to government schools where anything but the gospel truth (literally) is communicated, and a great deal that is virulently opposed to biblical truth. They see nothing wrong with exposing their children 5 or 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 180 days to teaching that they would never allow in their homes. Not to mention the social influence of the teachers and fellow students, many of whom most certainly do not hold to biblical values.
In conversation with some of these people, we are told that the PCA position paper on Christian Education is pious advice. If it's so pious, one wonders why more people don't take it? I have seen stiff resistance to the idea that government schools are just wrong and that Christian schools and home schooling are superior, both morally and educationally.
So, what do you think? Why are Christians in general so unconcerned with this issue, and so many willing to let their children be educated in the household of Baal? Why is it considered a lifestyle option? Do you agree or disagree, and what can be done about it?
Monday, January 16, 2012 2:37:13 AM
I heard an excellent sermon this morning (by the Rev. Dr. Allen Curry) on the nature of the church from 1 Pet 2:1-12. Now, the sermon really was good, and especially his overall application. What caught my attention initially, however, was his opening remarks, how we always hear that the church is not the building, but the people. He went on to point out that with that understood, Peter used the metaphor of building and temple to illustrate what we as God's people should be, and the reality of what it means to be the people of God.
That got me to thinking. The church is not the building, the physical structure in which we meet, but that doesn't mean that the building, as the physical structure, is unimportant. The church as God's people is meant to be visible in the world. We are not supposed to hide our light under a bushel basket, after all, but let it shine, the city on the hill, an inviting beacon to all who are lost in the darkness. One way that we can be visible is to have a specific building designated as the church building, the meeting place. Not only is it convenient in order to fulfill the Scriptural mandate of Heb 10:24-25, but is a way of saying "Here we are! We are God's people! Come and see that the Lord is good..." This is one aspect of medieval European culture that I think was spot on. In any village, and in most towns and cities of that time, the largest, most imposing structure, and the most important place, was the church building, a reminder that eternity and the kingdom of God was in their midst. We want to be that visible. We want people to know about us, and having a visible building is still an excellent way to do this.
Meeting together is especially important as we proceed ever deeper into the 21st century, "the information age." With apps for everything on our phones, computers in our homes, teleconferencing, and the like, it is easy to be "connected" in a sense without being together. Too many people use social media and technology as a substitute for being in community, and being in community together with God is what the church is all about, the covenant community. We can only do this by assembling as the corporate people of God. This is one way we show that we are different from the world around us. We have community, the only eternally valid community, and how can we express that to the world, how can we show them how much better it is than what they've got, unless we meet together visibly? And the best place to do that is... a building, good old fashioned brick and mortar.
Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:39:56 PM
Far too quickly, my daughters are getting older now. My 14 year old is talking about her driver's license and college major. My 12 year old is not far behind. My parents and the older people I knew when I was a child were absolutely right – time starts flying much too fast when you get older! I was looking at some of the toys and other gifts that we have gotten the girls over the brief time that God has entrusted us with them, items in our basement no longer used or perhaps even remembered (unless they do one of their occasional "excavations"). The thought occurred to me:
We didn't get these gifts because we had to, or to make the girls love us, or for any other reason except the fact that we loved them and wanted them to be happy at the time. We weren't trying to make them feel good about us when they were teenagers, or trying to get them to obey us better because they like us somehow – we got them those gifts only because we love them and want them to be happy.
Now, there's a lot more that goes into parenting, discipline, and sometimes making decisions that don't make the child immediately happy – we want our children to grow up good, not just happy, but as I reflected on this, I realized that I suddenly understood, on a much deeper level, God's love for us and why he gives us his gifts of grace, starting with Jesus himself (Eph 1:3-14). It's simply because he loves us, not to get anything out of us, not because we love him, but because he loves us...
Sunday, November 13, 2011 1:56:50 PM
Jason BeDuhn wrote a book defending the New World translation as the best all around translation available today because it avoids the religious biases of the KJV translators, something as he sees passed down to nearly all modern versions (
Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003, and see my review,
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/BDR.HTM). He claims in that book that one of the reasons they translated John 1:1c as "the word was God" rather than "a god" is because they were most familiar with the Latin Vulgate as their primary text. Latin, as you may or may not know, has neither a definite or indefinite article, so the KJV translators, used to thinking in those terms, naturally rendered "God" rather than "a god," which they should not have done if they understood the Greek grammar a little better. In my review, I respond:
To say that I find this claim incredible would be an understatement. In the first place, whatever else one might find to say about the KJV, the NT translators show a very high level of competence in correctly translating the article throughout. They knew Greek as well as any other scholar of their period.
Now, you can read my review for how otherwise I think BeDuhn got it wrong in his arguments on John 1:1. But here, I want to provide support for the claim that scholars at that time knew Greek well and were even discussing the use of the definite article in Greek with regard to the deity of Christ. Recently, a list member posted the following text to the b-Latin list and asked for help and commentary on the translation.
Addendum tamen non esse καθολου hanc observationem, quod, si duo conjunguntur, quorum prius cum articulo, posterius sine articulo ponitur, de eodem subjecto illa loquantur. Contrarium enim ex Matth. xxi. 12. Marc. ii. 15. Luc. xix. 45. apparet; ubi οἱ πολουντες και ἀγοραζοντες conjunguntur, quorum illud articulum habet, hoc vero non: et tamcn alii vendentes alii ementes inielliguntur.
(Philolog. Sacra, lib. 3. tractat. 2. canon I.)
This is Salomen Glassius (1593-1656).
My rendering:
Nevertheless, it must be added that this observation is not universal
[KAQOLOU), that if two are joined, the first by the article, the second
without, that they refer to the same subject. The contrary is found in Mt
21:12, Mk 2:15, Lk 19:45, where hOI PWLOUNTES KAI AGORAZONTES are joined,
the former with the article, the latter without. Different sellers and
different buyers are nevertheless understood.
While an earlier citation would be even better, this shows something of the state of grammatical understanding of the Greek in the first half of the 17th century. Why should we expect less of the KJV translators? Glassius, BTW, goes on to observe essentially that exceptions to a grammatical usage should not be used to undermine that usage in other contexts.
Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:52:03 PM
That tomorrow is supposed to be the end of the world. That's right, Oct 21st is the rain date set by Harold Camping for the real end of the world (May 21st, it turns out, was just the beginning of God's absolutely final judgment). On one of the mail lists, someone quipped "pack light and makes sure all your appliances are turned off." But all joking aside, I wonder how Camping will handle yet another failed prediction? If you are inclined to do so, please pray for all the various individuals who might be affected, that their faith would not be in a man, but in the Lord, and that they would diligently search the Scriptures to see what they really teach about such things.
Sunday, October 9, 2011 12:40:39 PM
Some interesting comments by Alex Poulos:
http://mapoulos.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/learning-latin-with-greek/As in the comment I left there, I have sometimes experimented with having students translate directly from Greek into Latin (though I haven't yet tried it the other way, perhaps because my students end up having more Latin than Greek by the time they graduate). It's a fun and useful exercise, though, and I'm coming to the conclusion that composition is essential for internalizing the languages. I am currently rethinking my classes to include composition time for each of them.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 11:44:27 AM
This is answering the national vs. individual election argument in Rom 9. The interlocutor was attempting to prove his point from Paul's use of the OT passages that national election was in view, actually a failed argument from context:
Mal 1:1 The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. Mal 1:2
"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is
not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two
peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the
other, the older shall serve the younger." Gen 25:24 When her days to give
birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb.
Yes, these are prophecies which are addressed through the individuals to the
nations descended from them. But it begins with individuals... In Rom 9,
Paul is concerned with showing that God's promises to Israel did not fail,
so the passages quoted indicate the sovereignty of God in election. Now,
let me ask you a question -- "Jacob I loved." Will you find every single
descendant of Jacob in heaven? Paul in Rom 9 gets back to the theme of true
Israel (a theme found earlier in Romans), which is defined as those who are
truly related to Christ in faith. Paul is demonstrating that God did indeed
keep his promises through Christ, and that true Israel are those who have
faith in Christ. The individuals particularize the nations, and show that
God's promises do not fail -- they worked out in the lives of Jacob and Esau
as individuals, they work out in the history of the nations who have God's
particular attention. By the way, pay attention to the pronouns and the
verb forms throughout Rom 9. For example, he uses the second person
singular of the verb -- he is addressing individuals, that the general
principle of God's sovereign election works right down to the individual
level. Paul takes particular cases, and then draws general principles from
them which apply across the board -- he does not intend to say that God's
elective will applies only to nations (which, as I pointed out earlier,
consist of individuals).
Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:17:57 AM
http://danielstreett.wordpress.com/A lot of really good reflection on what it means really to know ancient Greek. I especially liked this entry:
http://danielstreett.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/greek-professors-do-they-know-greek-basics-of-greek-pedagogy-pt-3/I took the quiz, and as I posted there scored around 90%. Whew! For some reason I couldn't think of the word for nose, though I immediately recognized it when I saw it.
The other odd thing when I was "taking" the quiz -- for most of the words, the first thing that popped in my head was the Latin, not the Greek. Scary.
1 2 3 4 5 ... 43 Next »
My Opera
