Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, January 11, 2010
Selling Webster's Speller
Noah Webster's American Spelling Book (aka, Blue-back Speller) is currently being republished. As the product description from one site declares:
"His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. Little did he know that this remarkable gem would become the staple for parents and educators for more than a century and would help to build the most literate nation in the history of the West. Many of the Founding Fathers used this book to home school their children, including Benjamin Franklin who taught his granddaughter..."
What are Christians to make of these assertions? Is this book even worth buying?
Let us peal back the claims in reverse order.
First of all, the claim that many of the Founding Fathers used this to homeschool their children is dubious. In my experience, many historical claims have been circulated that have no foundation in fact (e.g. Jefferson, Witherspoon and John Jay were homeschooled, more here). The book was published in 1783. A little late for mass circulation for some Founder's children. Yet it could be the case that many of the Founders used Webster's book for their children. Not having easy access to the facts, I can only hold this assertion in abeyance.
Second, the book appears to have been a staple for education and helped raise literacy. This claim is true as far as it goes. It must be remembered, however, that this does not mean that literacy was not already being propagated by other means. The blue-book was popular but did not singlehandedly create a literate society. In fact, in 1765 John Adams noted:
"A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic, that is, as rare as a comet or an earthquake." (here)
Third, the book was written for schools. Webster notes in the preface,
"THE design of this Grammatical institute is to furnish schools in this country with an easy, accurate and comprehensive system of rules and lessons for teaching the English language."
Of course, it can be used for homeschooling. The irony is simply that the publisher and catalog are part of an organization that pushes, promotes and proposes homeschooling as the Biblical approach (here).
Fourth, the claims of a "Christ-centered approach" is dubious at best. Using an online transcript of the 1800 text, I searched for common words a presumed "Christ-centered approach" text would use. Here are some results:
Searching for sin and its cognates yielded a total of seven times in one section (lessons of easy words and moral duty). The word is mentioned eight more times in a similar fashion, most notably:
"He that covereth his sins shall not pros-per; but he that confesseth and forsaketh them shall find mercy."
Next, I searched for cognates of 'Christ'. It is used about ten times and once for pronunciation. Another few times it refers to what Christ said. The bulk was in the Moral Catechism section, making no mention of the Gospel.
The word 'Gospel' does not exist. 'Repent' and its cognates occurs once. 'Faith' occurs once as an example of a monosyllabic word. 'Believe' is never used with respect to God or Christ. 'Cross' is found in a list of words and part of a proverb.
Thus far the evidence is a far cry from a "Christ-centered approach." In fact,there is evidence to the contrary: in the appendix is a Moral Catechism. A Catechism without reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although the Catechism does not mention the Gospel, it does mention the pure in heart:
Q. What reward is promised to the pure in heart?
A. Christ has declared "they shall see God." A pure heart is like God, and those who possess it shall dwell in his presence, and enjoy his favour forever.
Furthermore, in the section describing a "Good Boy" and a "Bad Boy" any reference to God, church and Christ are missing.
In contrast, Christ-centered instruction would point out that Christians (and "good boys") can only see God through the merits of Christ.
Lastly, the biography of Webster explains why this Speller--although useful--was not Christ-centered: he was not converted until 1808. He admits that before that time he preferred the more "rational" religion of doing good to one's neighbor over the more "emotional" doctrines of grace. But God's omnipotent love moved his heart to eschew moralism and accept a Christ-centered education in his life.
The conclusion of the matter is that this book is a mixed bag. It is heavy on the Law with no corresponding Gospel message. With today's weak Christian culture, this book can easily turn into simple moralism.
That does not mean that one cannot use it. It means that a father or mother must use it in an environment that has a clear presentation of the Gospel of Christ's righteousness. Hopefully, with these facts at hand parents will be better able to evaluate the selling and buying of Webster's Blue-back Speller.
"His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. Little did he know that this remarkable gem would become the staple for parents and educators for more than a century and would help to build the most literate nation in the history of the West. Many of the Founding Fathers used this book to home school their children, including Benjamin Franklin who taught his granddaughter..."
What are Christians to make of these assertions? Is this book even worth buying?
Let us peal back the claims in reverse order.
First of all, the claim that many of the Founding Fathers used this to homeschool their children is dubious. In my experience, many historical claims have been circulated that have no foundation in fact (e.g. Jefferson, Witherspoon and John Jay were homeschooled, more here). The book was published in 1783. A little late for mass circulation for some Founder's children. Yet it could be the case that many of the Founders used Webster's book for their children. Not having easy access to the facts, I can only hold this assertion in abeyance.
Second, the book appears to have been a staple for education and helped raise literacy. This claim is true as far as it goes. It must be remembered, however, that this does not mean that literacy was not already being propagated by other means. The blue-book was popular but did not singlehandedly create a literate society. In fact, in 1765 John Adams noted:
"A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic, that is, as rare as a comet or an earthquake." (here)
Third, the book was written for schools. Webster notes in the preface,
"THE design of this Grammatical institute is to furnish schools in this country with an easy, accurate and comprehensive system of rules and lessons for teaching the English language."
Of course, it can be used for homeschooling. The irony is simply that the publisher and catalog are part of an organization that pushes, promotes and proposes homeschooling as the Biblical approach (here).
Fourth, the claims of a "Christ-centered approach" is dubious at best. Using an online transcript of the 1800 text, I searched for common words a presumed "Christ-centered approach" text would use. Here are some results:
Searching for sin and its cognates yielded a total of seven times in one section (lessons of easy words and moral duty). The word is mentioned eight more times in a similar fashion, most notably:
"He that covereth his sins shall not pros-per; but he that confesseth and forsaketh them shall find mercy."
Next, I searched for cognates of 'Christ'. It is used about ten times and once for pronunciation. Another few times it refers to what Christ said. The bulk was in the Moral Catechism section, making no mention of the Gospel.
The word 'Gospel' does not exist. 'Repent' and its cognates occurs once. 'Faith' occurs once as an example of a monosyllabic word. 'Believe' is never used with respect to God or Christ. 'Cross' is found in a list of words and part of a proverb.
Thus far the evidence is a far cry from a "Christ-centered approach." In fact,there is evidence to the contrary: in the appendix is a Moral Catechism. A Catechism without reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although the Catechism does not mention the Gospel, it does mention the pure in heart:
Q. What reward is promised to the pure in heart?
A. Christ has declared "they shall see God." A pure heart is like God, and those who possess it shall dwell in his presence, and enjoy his favour forever.
Furthermore, in the section describing a "Good Boy" and a "Bad Boy" any reference to God, church and Christ are missing.
In contrast, Christ-centered instruction would point out that Christians (and "good boys") can only see God through the merits of Christ.
Lastly, the biography of Webster explains why this Speller--although useful--was not Christ-centered: he was not converted until 1808. He admits that before that time he preferred the more "rational" religion of doing good to one's neighbor over the more "emotional" doctrines of grace. But God's omnipotent love moved his heart to eschew moralism and accept a Christ-centered education in his life.
The conclusion of the matter is that this book is a mixed bag. It is heavy on the Law with no corresponding Gospel message. With today's weak Christian culture, this book can easily turn into simple moralism.
That does not mean that one cannot use it. It means that a father or mother must use it in an environment that has a clear presentation of the Gospel of Christ's righteousness. Hopefully, with these facts at hand parents will be better able to evaluate the selling and buying of Webster's Blue-back Speller.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Necessity of Schools--Comenius 1630s
Johann Amos Comenius
The Great Didactic
Chapter VIII
THE YOUNG MUST BE EDUCATED IN COMMON, AND FOR THIS SCHOOLS ARE NECESSARY
Having shown that those plants of Paradise, Christian children, cannot grow up like a forest, but need tending, we must now see on whom this care should fall. It is indeed the most natural duty of parents to see that the lives for which they are responsible shall be rational, virtuous, and pious. God Himself bears witness that this was Abraham's custom, when He says : " For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment" (Gen. xviii. 19). He demands it from parents in general, with this command : " And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up " (Deut. vi. 7). By the Apostle also He says: "And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" (Ephes. vi. 4).
2. But, since human occupations as well as human beings have multiplied, it is rare to find men who have either sufficient knowledge or sufficient leisure to instruct their children. The wise habit has therefore arisen of giving over children, for their common education, to select persons, conspicuous for their knowledge of affairs and their soberness of morals. To such instructors of the young the name of preceptor, master, schoolmaster, or professor has been applied, while the places destined for this common instruction have been named schools, elementary schools, lecture-rooms, colleges, public schools, and universities.
3. On the authority of Josephus we learn that the patriarch Shem opened the first school, just after the flood. Later, this was called the Hebrew school. Who does not know that in Chaldsea, especially in Babylon, there were many schools, in which the arts, including astronomy, were cultivated ? since, later on (in the time of Nebuchadnezzar), Daniel and his companions were instructed in the wisdom of the Chaldseans (Dan. i. 20), as was also the case with Moses in Egypt (Acts vii. 22). By the command of God, schools were set up in all the towns of the children of Israel; they were called synagogues, and in them the Levites used to teach the law. These lasted till the coming of Christ, and became renowned through His teaching and that of His Apostles. The custom of erecting schools was borrowed by the Romans from the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Jews, and from the Romans it spread throughout their whole empire, especially when the religion of Christ became universal through the care of pious princes and bishops. History relates that Charlemagne, whenever he subjected any heathen race, forthwith ordained for it bishops and learned men, and erected churches and schools; and after him the other Christian emperors, kings, nobles, and magistrates have increased the number of schools so much that they are innumerable.
4. It is to the interest of the whole Christian republic that this Godly custom be not only retained but increased as well, and that in every well-ordered habitation of man (whether a city, a town, or a village), a school or place of education for the young be erected. This is demanded :—
5. (i) By the admirable method of transacting business which is in common use. For, as the head of a household makes use of various craftsmen when he has no leisure time to prepare what is necessary for his household economy, why should he make any difference in the case of education? When he needs flour, he goes to the miller; when flesh, to the butcher; when drink, to the inn-keeper; when clothing, to the tailor; when shoes, to the cobbler; when a house, a ploughshare, or a key, to the builder, the smith, or the locksmith. Again, we have churches for religious instruction, and law courts and assembly rooms in which to discuss the causes of litigants and make weighty announcements to the assembled people ; why not schools also for the young ? Farmers do not feed their own pigs and cows, but keep hired herdsmen who feed them all at one time, while their masters, free from distraction, transact their own business. For this is a marvellous saving of labour, when one man, undisturbed by other claims on his attention, confines himself to one thing; in this way one man can be of use to many, and many to one man.
6. (ii) By necessity, because it is very seldom that parents have sufficient ability or sufficient leisure to teach their children. The consequence is that there has arisen a class of men who do this one thing alone, as a profession, and that by this means the advantage of the whole community is attained.
7. (iii) And although there might be parents with leisure to educate their own children, it is nevertheless better that the young should be taught together and in large classes, since better results and more pleasure are to be obtained when one pupil serves as an example and a stimulus for another. For to do what we see others do, to go where others go, to follow those who are ahead of us, and to keep in front of those who are behind us, is the course of action to which we are all most naturally inclined.
Young children, especially, are always more easily led and ruled by example than by precept. If you give them a precept, it makes but little impression; if you point out that others are doing something, they imitate without being told to do so.
8. (iv) Again, nature is always showing us by examples that whatever is to be produced in abundance must be produced in some one place. Thus, for instance, wood is produced in quantities in forests, grass in fields, fish in lakes, and metals in the bowels of the earth.
Specialisation, too, is carried to such an extent, that the forest which produces pines, cedars, or oaks, produces them in abundance, although other kinds of trees may be unable to grow there; and, in the same way, land that produces gold does not produce other metals in like quantity...
9. (v) And, finally, we see the same tendency in the arts, if a rational procedure be used. When a tree cultivator, in his walks through woods and thickets, finds a sapling suitable for transplanting, he does not plant it in the same place where he finds it, but digs it out and places it in an orchard, where he cares for it in company with a hundred others...And therefore, as fish-ponds are dug for fish and orchards are laid out for fruit-trees, so also should schools be erected for the young.
The Great Didactic
Chapter VIII
THE YOUNG MUST BE EDUCATED IN COMMON, AND FOR THIS SCHOOLS ARE NECESSARY
Having shown that those plants of Paradise, Christian children, cannot grow up like a forest, but need tending, we must now see on whom this care should fall. It is indeed the most natural duty of parents to see that the lives for which they are responsible shall be rational, virtuous, and pious. God Himself bears witness that this was Abraham's custom, when He says : " For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment" (Gen. xviii. 19). He demands it from parents in general, with this command : " And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up " (Deut. vi. 7). By the Apostle also He says: "And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" (Ephes. vi. 4).
2. But, since human occupations as well as human beings have multiplied, it is rare to find men who have either sufficient knowledge or sufficient leisure to instruct their children. The wise habit has therefore arisen of giving over children, for their common education, to select persons, conspicuous for their knowledge of affairs and their soberness of morals. To such instructors of the young the name of preceptor, master, schoolmaster, or professor has been applied, while the places destined for this common instruction have been named schools, elementary schools, lecture-rooms, colleges, public schools, and universities.
3. On the authority of Josephus we learn that the patriarch Shem opened the first school, just after the flood. Later, this was called the Hebrew school. Who does not know that in Chaldsea, especially in Babylon, there were many schools, in which the arts, including astronomy, were cultivated ? since, later on (in the time of Nebuchadnezzar), Daniel and his companions were instructed in the wisdom of the Chaldseans (Dan. i. 20), as was also the case with Moses in Egypt (Acts vii. 22). By the command of God, schools were set up in all the towns of the children of Israel; they were called synagogues, and in them the Levites used to teach the law. These lasted till the coming of Christ, and became renowned through His teaching and that of His Apostles. The custom of erecting schools was borrowed by the Romans from the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Jews, and from the Romans it spread throughout their whole empire, especially when the religion of Christ became universal through the care of pious princes and bishops. History relates that Charlemagne, whenever he subjected any heathen race, forthwith ordained for it bishops and learned men, and erected churches and schools; and after him the other Christian emperors, kings, nobles, and magistrates have increased the number of schools so much that they are innumerable.
4. It is to the interest of the whole Christian republic that this Godly custom be not only retained but increased as well, and that in every well-ordered habitation of man (whether a city, a town, or a village), a school or place of education for the young be erected. This is demanded :—
5. (i) By the admirable method of transacting business which is in common use. For, as the head of a household makes use of various craftsmen when he has no leisure time to prepare what is necessary for his household economy, why should he make any difference in the case of education? When he needs flour, he goes to the miller; when flesh, to the butcher; when drink, to the inn-keeper; when clothing, to the tailor; when shoes, to the cobbler; when a house, a ploughshare, or a key, to the builder, the smith, or the locksmith. Again, we have churches for religious instruction, and law courts and assembly rooms in which to discuss the causes of litigants and make weighty announcements to the assembled people ; why not schools also for the young ? Farmers do not feed their own pigs and cows, but keep hired herdsmen who feed them all at one time, while their masters, free from distraction, transact their own business. For this is a marvellous saving of labour, when one man, undisturbed by other claims on his attention, confines himself to one thing; in this way one man can be of use to many, and many to one man.
6. (ii) By necessity, because it is very seldom that parents have sufficient ability or sufficient leisure to teach their children. The consequence is that there has arisen a class of men who do this one thing alone, as a profession, and that by this means the advantage of the whole community is attained.
7. (iii) And although there might be parents with leisure to educate their own children, it is nevertheless better that the young should be taught together and in large classes, since better results and more pleasure are to be obtained when one pupil serves as an example and a stimulus for another. For to do what we see others do, to go where others go, to follow those who are ahead of us, and to keep in front of those who are behind us, is the course of action to which we are all most naturally inclined.
Young children, especially, are always more easily led and ruled by example than by precept. If you give them a precept, it makes but little impression; if you point out that others are doing something, they imitate without being told to do so.
8. (iv) Again, nature is always showing us by examples that whatever is to be produced in abundance must be produced in some one place. Thus, for instance, wood is produced in quantities in forests, grass in fields, fish in lakes, and metals in the bowels of the earth.
Specialisation, too, is carried to such an extent, that the forest which produces pines, cedars, or oaks, produces them in abundance, although other kinds of trees may be unable to grow there; and, in the same way, land that produces gold does not produce other metals in like quantity...
9. (v) And, finally, we see the same tendency in the arts, if a rational procedure be used. When a tree cultivator, in his walks through woods and thickets, finds a sapling suitable for transplanting, he does not plant it in the same place where he finds it, but digs it out and places it in an orchard, where he cares for it in company with a hundred others...And therefore, as fish-ponds are dug for fish and orchards are laid out for fruit-trees, so also should schools be erected for the young.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Calvinism, History & Homeschooling
Many homeschoolers--like many conservative Evangelicals--imbibe on the glories of yesteryear: when Christianity dominated early America. In fact, it is not uncommon that homeschoolers pride themselves as a continuation of that past generation.
But what if what you know about that past generation was wrong? Would that make you think twice about cause and effect--that the cause of what we deem a successful Christian past was anchored in a specific form of Christianity and not some generic, vague and amorphous Deism that many Americans believe today?
Consider:
1. The founders of the three main settlements, Jamestown, Plymouth and Massachusetts, were creedal Calvinists.
2. The Huguenot settlers in the South, the German Reformed of the middle colonies and the Dutch of New York were all Calvinists.
3. In 1780, the number of Calvinist churches (of one stripe or another) in America ranged from 60-80% (Religion and the American Experiment, Witte, 120)
4. The most popular school book for 100 years, The New England Primer, was Calvinistic!
5. Many state legislatures (and the national body) called for days of fasting and prayer in the Calvinistic language of Providence:
“…it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him;… Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely...on his aid and direction and…through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; and by inclining their hearts to justice and benevolence…” Continental Congress, March, 1776.
And not only were the general contours of American life Calvinistic, many of the little known and well-known leaders were or were raised Calvinists: Patrick Henry, John Jay, John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman and Noah Webster.
Yes, that dictionary on your shelf was written by a Calvinist.
Even the political resistance theory was greatly influenced by Calvinism. John Adams bluntly acknowledges the wide-spread influences of both the French-Calvinist’s work Vindicus Contra Tyrannus and the English Calvinist work of Ponet (A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power), both which defended the right of the people to rise against tyrants.
Much of our political, social and economic freedoms hail from Calvinism.
But why? Is there something deeper to Calvinism than a system of thought that spawned the early Modern Era?
Yes. It is the Gospel.
Ask yourself, Is it coincidence that Luther, Calvin, Tyndale & the Puritans all believed in the Five Points of Calvinism? In TULIP--Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints?
God the Spirit raised up Luther and Calvin and a hundred other pastors who taught that creeds and deeds must be rooted in the Five Solas--that the Bible alone teaches justification through faith alone by grace alone on account of Christ alone to the glory of God alone. And those Solas were carried to the four corners of Europe by the original Protestants of old and their public creeds: Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, Anglican 39 Articles, Dutch, Swiss, Irish, Polish, Hungarian, French Huguenots, Congregational and Baptist--all with a Calvinistic creed in their origins.
What about those American revivals? Started among the Calvinists first. Whitefield and Edwards--Calvinists. Wesley came a bit later. The Second Great Awakening was started among the Calvinist--Congregationalist, Baptists and Presbyterians. Later on it was hijacked (25 year later!) by Finney and his free-will salvation.
Dear homeschooler: consider well this summary of historical facts. Do you want something greater for your family, your children and their children? for this nation?
You want to bring it back to the good old days don't you? I know I do.
Then learn the lesson of one of the most popular and well-respected Calvinists of the 1800s:
"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross."
Charles Spurgeon
Sermons, p.88, 1858.
AMEN.
[Hungry for more truth? here for more detailed info or post. Hungry for what the Gospel really is, email me: pastor mathis at gmail dot com]
But what if what you know about that past generation was wrong? Would that make you think twice about cause and effect--that the cause of what we deem a successful Christian past was anchored in a specific form of Christianity and not some generic, vague and amorphous Deism that many Americans believe today?
Consider:
1. The founders of the three main settlements, Jamestown, Plymouth and Massachusetts, were creedal Calvinists.
2. The Huguenot settlers in the South, the German Reformed of the middle colonies and the Dutch of New York were all Calvinists.
3. In 1780, the number of Calvinist churches (of one stripe or another) in America ranged from 60-80% (Religion and the American Experiment, Witte, 120)
4. The most popular school book for 100 years, The New England Primer, was Calvinistic!
5. Many state legislatures (and the national body) called for days of fasting and prayer in the Calvinistic language of Providence:
“…it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him;… Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely...on his aid and direction and…through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; and by inclining their hearts to justice and benevolence…” Continental Congress, March, 1776.
And not only were the general contours of American life Calvinistic, many of the little known and well-known leaders were or were raised Calvinists: Patrick Henry, John Jay, John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman and Noah Webster.
Yes, that dictionary on your shelf was written by a Calvinist.
Even the political resistance theory was greatly influenced by Calvinism. John Adams bluntly acknowledges the wide-spread influences of both the French-Calvinist’s work Vindicus Contra Tyrannus and the English Calvinist work of Ponet (A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power), both which defended the right of the people to rise against tyrants.
Much of our political, social and economic freedoms hail from Calvinism.
But why? Is there something deeper to Calvinism than a system of thought that spawned the early Modern Era?
Yes. It is the Gospel.
Ask yourself, Is it coincidence that Luther, Calvin, Tyndale & the Puritans all believed in the Five Points of Calvinism? In TULIP--Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints?
God the Spirit raised up Luther and Calvin and a hundred other pastors who taught that creeds and deeds must be rooted in the Five Solas--that the Bible alone teaches justification through faith alone by grace alone on account of Christ alone to the glory of God alone. And those Solas were carried to the four corners of Europe by the original Protestants of old and their public creeds: Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, Anglican 39 Articles, Dutch, Swiss, Irish, Polish, Hungarian, French Huguenots, Congregational and Baptist--all with a Calvinistic creed in their origins.
What about those American revivals? Started among the Calvinists first. Whitefield and Edwards--Calvinists. Wesley came a bit later. The Second Great Awakening was started among the Calvinist--Congregationalist, Baptists and Presbyterians. Later on it was hijacked (25 year later!) by Finney and his free-will salvation.
Dear homeschooler: consider well this summary of historical facts. Do you want something greater for your family, your children and their children? for this nation?
You want to bring it back to the good old days don't you? I know I do.
Then learn the lesson of one of the most popular and well-respected Calvinists of the 1800s:
"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross."
Charles Spurgeon
Sermons, p.88, 1858.
AMEN.
[Hungry for more truth? here for more detailed info or post. Hungry for what the Gospel really is, email me: pastor mathis at gmail dot com]
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Nurture Lessons--Cotton Mather on Children
Cotton Mather was a godly man. As a great colonial pastor, he lived as well as he preached. He nurtured as well as he preached. And I hope that summarizing his fathering techniques will bring inspiration to hundreds of fathers. (Below is taken from Life of the Late Rev. and Learned Dr. Cotton Mather, p.15ff.).
"The rules he observed, and the methods he pursued in the education of his children, may probably give some useful hints to other godly parents; on which account therefore they are worth relating. As,
1. He poured out continual prayers to the God of all grace for them, and especially for spiritual blessings...
2. He began to entertain them betimes with delightful stories, chiefly out of the Scripture history, from which he would always draw some lesson of piety, and endeavour to fix it upon their minds by means of the story. This was one part of the stated entertainment of his table every day.
3. When his children accidentally fell in his way, it was his usual custom to drop some sentence for their instruction...
4. He endeavoured to engage all his children very early in exercises of piety and devotion, and especially in secret prayer, for which he gave them plain and short directions. And he would often remind them of this their duty; " Child, don't you forget, every day to go alone, and pray, as I have directed you."
5. He endeavoured also to form their tender minds into a temper of kindness and beneficence, by putting them on doing kind services for one another, and for other children : and he would encourage and commend them, when he saw they delighted in it...He earnestly cautioned them against all manner of revenging of injuries, and instructed them to return good offices for evil ones, showing them, that they would hereby become like the good God and the blessed Jesus. And thus he laboured to form his children into a sweetness of temper, as well as into a decent and regular behaviour.
6. He had his children taught to write as soon as possible; and as soon as they could write, he would employ them in writing out short lessons of virtue and piety, which he contrived for them, in order to fix those lessons the deeper in their memories.
7. At the same time that he endeavoured to assure them of his love, and taught them to pay a becoming deference to his judgment, as to all things that were good for them, he laboured also to convince them of the baseness and hatefulness of all sin, and of the amiableness of virtue and goodness.
8. His usual method of correcting his children for their faults was very tender, and yet not the less effectual, but probably the more so. The first correction, (if one may call it so,) if the fault were not very great, was to let the child see him in a perfect astonishment, at its being guilty of so base a thing, hardly believing it could be true, or however hoping the child would never do so any more. For the child to be banished from its father's presence for some time, was ordinarily the heaviest punishment of all; and so his children were taught to account it . He rarely corrected any of them with blows, and never but in a case of obstinacy, or for something highly criminal. For he looked upon that slavish way of education, which is so commonly practised in schools and families, by raving at children and beating them for every fault, to be a dreadful judgment of God upon the world, and a very abominable practice.
9. He endeavoured with all possible kind insinuations, to bring his children to a love of learning, and to make them account it the noblest thing in the world. Therefore he seldom proposed play for the reward of diligence, lest they should think diversion better than their business: but rather he would have his children account it a privilege to be taught; therefore, his refusing to teach them was the punishment which he sometimes inflicted for a fault. Instead of threatening to whip them, if they did, or did not do so and so, he would threaten, that they should not be suffered to read, or to write, or learn such and such a thing. On the other hand, his children were taught to expect it, as a reward of their doing well that their Father would teach them something that was curious and entertaining.
10. Above all other instructions which he gave his children, he laboured most earnestly and diligently to instruct them in religion, and to impress their minds with an early sense of it. He would often call them "to remember their Creator," telling them the eye of the great God was always upon them. He endeavoured to recommend Christ to their love, and his example to their imitation, as a proper expression of their love to the blessed Jesus. He would particularly recommend to them the pattern of Christ's obedience to his Father's will in all things, as that which they should follow, by doing whatever their parents required of them. He would often tell them also of the good angels, who love them, and guard them from many evils, and do many good offices for them; therefore they should be very careful, that they do not grieve and disoblige them, by doing any ill thing. He did not choose to say much to his young children about the evil angels, lest it should impress their fancies with frightful notions of apparitions.— Yet he would briefly tell them of the devils who tempt them to sin, and who are glad when they do wickedly, that they may get leave of God to kill them for it. He would tell them further, and that often too, of the judgment and world to come, of heaven and of hell, as the consequence of their good or bad behaviour here. And, when his children were grown capable of superior methods of instruction, he would take them alone, one by one, and after many affectionate and solemn charges to fear God, to love Christ, and to hate sin, he would pray with them in his study, and make them the witnesses of his strong cries and earnest wrestlings with God, on their behalf.
11. He not only taught his children the catechism, and explained it to their understanding, by asking abundance of short questions upon every answer, but he used also to examine them upon the sermons they heard, in a catechetical way, turning every head and truth that had been delivered into a question to be answered with yes or no.— This he found was an excellent means of engaging their attention and informing their minds.—In these familiar exercises he would often take an opportunity to ask his children such serious questions as these: "Do you desire this grace? Do you consent to this article of the gospel covenant?" And there is reason to hope and believe, that the good Spirit of God brought several of them to an unfeigned consent to the covenant of grace, by means of his exercises."
"The rules he observed, and the methods he pursued in the education of his children, may probably give some useful hints to other godly parents; on which account therefore they are worth relating. As,
1. He poured out continual prayers to the God of all grace for them, and especially for spiritual blessings...
2. He began to entertain them betimes with delightful stories, chiefly out of the Scripture history, from which he would always draw some lesson of piety, and endeavour to fix it upon their minds by means of the story. This was one part of the stated entertainment of his table every day.
3. When his children accidentally fell in his way, it was his usual custom to drop some sentence for their instruction...
4. He endeavoured to engage all his children very early in exercises of piety and devotion, and especially in secret prayer, for which he gave them plain and short directions. And he would often remind them of this their duty; " Child, don't you forget, every day to go alone, and pray, as I have directed you."
5. He endeavoured also to form their tender minds into a temper of kindness and beneficence, by putting them on doing kind services for one another, and for other children : and he would encourage and commend them, when he saw they delighted in it...He earnestly cautioned them against all manner of revenging of injuries, and instructed them to return good offices for evil ones, showing them, that they would hereby become like the good God and the blessed Jesus. And thus he laboured to form his children into a sweetness of temper, as well as into a decent and regular behaviour.
6. He had his children taught to write as soon as possible; and as soon as they could write, he would employ them in writing out short lessons of virtue and piety, which he contrived for them, in order to fix those lessons the deeper in their memories.
7. At the same time that he endeavoured to assure them of his love, and taught them to pay a becoming deference to his judgment, as to all things that were good for them, he laboured also to convince them of the baseness and hatefulness of all sin, and of the amiableness of virtue and goodness.
8. His usual method of correcting his children for their faults was very tender, and yet not the less effectual, but probably the more so. The first correction, (if one may call it so,) if the fault were not very great, was to let the child see him in a perfect astonishment, at its being guilty of so base a thing, hardly believing it could be true, or however hoping the child would never do so any more. For the child to be banished from its father's presence for some time, was ordinarily the heaviest punishment of all; and so his children were taught to account it . He rarely corrected any of them with blows, and never but in a case of obstinacy, or for something highly criminal. For he looked upon that slavish way of education, which is so commonly practised in schools and families, by raving at children and beating them for every fault, to be a dreadful judgment of God upon the world, and a very abominable practice.
9. He endeavoured with all possible kind insinuations, to bring his children to a love of learning, and to make them account it the noblest thing in the world. Therefore he seldom proposed play for the reward of diligence, lest they should think diversion better than their business: but rather he would have his children account it a privilege to be taught; therefore, his refusing to teach them was the punishment which he sometimes inflicted for a fault. Instead of threatening to whip them, if they did, or did not do so and so, he would threaten, that they should not be suffered to read, or to write, or learn such and such a thing. On the other hand, his children were taught to expect it, as a reward of their doing well that their Father would teach them something that was curious and entertaining.
10. Above all other instructions which he gave his children, he laboured most earnestly and diligently to instruct them in religion, and to impress their minds with an early sense of it. He would often call them "to remember their Creator," telling them the eye of the great God was always upon them. He endeavoured to recommend Christ to their love, and his example to their imitation, as a proper expression of their love to the blessed Jesus. He would particularly recommend to them the pattern of Christ's obedience to his Father's will in all things, as that which they should follow, by doing whatever their parents required of them. He would often tell them also of the good angels, who love them, and guard them from many evils, and do many good offices for them; therefore they should be very careful, that they do not grieve and disoblige them, by doing any ill thing. He did not choose to say much to his young children about the evil angels, lest it should impress their fancies with frightful notions of apparitions.— Yet he would briefly tell them of the devils who tempt them to sin, and who are glad when they do wickedly, that they may get leave of God to kill them for it. He would tell them further, and that often too, of the judgment and world to come, of heaven and of hell, as the consequence of their good or bad behaviour here. And, when his children were grown capable of superior methods of instruction, he would take them alone, one by one, and after many affectionate and solemn charges to fear God, to love Christ, and to hate sin, he would pray with them in his study, and make them the witnesses of his strong cries and earnest wrestlings with God, on their behalf.
11. He not only taught his children the catechism, and explained it to their understanding, by asking abundance of short questions upon every answer, but he used also to examine them upon the sermons they heard, in a catechetical way, turning every head and truth that had been delivered into a question to be answered with yes or no.— This he found was an excellent means of engaging their attention and informing their minds.—In these familiar exercises he would often take an opportunity to ask his children such serious questions as these: "Do you desire this grace? Do you consent to this article of the gospel covenant?" And there is reason to hope and believe, that the good Spirit of God brought several of them to an unfeigned consent to the covenant of grace, by means of his exercises."
Friday, January 30, 2009
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
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.
It did not change my mind about the propriety of homeschooling--it is certainly allowable and even desirable in many circumstances. But then, so are other methods of schooling.
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, discipline and imitation. Narrowly, education can be conceived of as a more structured/systematic teaching 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.
Part 2
Home
(This series is a condensed version of a soon-to-be-published A Short History of Christian Education)
Monday, January 12, 2009
Famous Homeschoolers in History...?
The rise of modern homeschooling in the last two decades has done much good. It is a result of many parents who realize that the schools are mostly bastions of unbelief. And it has helped many families focus on an important aspect of their duty: the godly education of their children.
However, as with most movements, there is good mixed with the bad. In this particular case, homeschooling history is being rewritten.
One website promoting homeschooling success stories presents an impressive array of homeschooled heroes. Under the first heading, "Activists," Peter Jennings is listed. Clicking on the link and reading the wikipedia article, one discovers that this famous man attended school until he flunked 10th grade. Certainly a strange candidate for homeschool hero status.
Moving onto another hero. Clicking on "Jason Taylor" (NFL player) yields more evidence that slopply history is being written: He was homeschooled for about three years.
At the end of the day, is this how homeschoolers and their defenders (including myself) wish to promote this noble cause? With such reasoning demonstrated above, public school advocates could use any homeschooler who attend school for three years (just invert Jason Taylor's profile). Or claim a famous person who was homeschooled until grade 10 as their own--if only because afterward he entered public school (just invert Peter Jennings' profile).
At best, this is equivocal reasoning.
Perhaps a more notable list should be examined. After all, not all who write lists on the web are qualified to do so. So, after googling, several lists were discovered (both online, in books and on the radio). The lists are long. The work was hard. At the end, five are presented below as examples of the typical educational backgrounds during that time-period:
Close examination of the above samples reveals a mixed approach to education that is being matched today in homeschooling circles. Too often the modern rhetoric has highlighted the superiority of homeschooling in the abstract, as though homeschooling was just junior, mom and dad. In reality, more and more families are mixing some form of tutoring into their child's curriculum. Many families are discovering that no family is an island and that God has graced his kingdom with differing abilities, with some families stronger in one academic area than others. But this is yet another posting for the future.
The conclusion of the matter is that rewriting history rewrites our expectations: "If only we could create that homeschooling environment, we could turn back the clock!"--a cry I've heard and read over the years. We will not achieve another Patrick Henry simply by homeschooling. Another James Madison will not arise from the ashes of America simply by homeschooling. Homeschooling is but one means to an end. And it operated in a Christian culture that is lost today (think Sabbatarian, confessional, & Calvinistic). If we want to turn back the clock, we need such a milieu again.
Retelling internet educational fables only sets up the homeschoolers and their supporters for a humiliating fall. Instead the focus should be on supporting one another in love. Hyping history in favor of one educational method over another just turns into a in-house fight--a form a tribalism that will eat the church from within. Instead, the spirit of 1 Corinthians 13 should prevail and the truth of history should be supported. In fact, homeschoolers should support private schoolers; private schoolers should help homeschoolers; and churches should nurture their members on the pure Gospel of Christ and the Law of His kingdom.
SDG
However, as with most movements, there is good mixed with the bad. In this particular case, homeschooling history is being rewritten.
One website promoting homeschooling success stories presents an impressive array of homeschooled heroes. Under the first heading, "Activists," Peter Jennings is listed. Clicking on the link and reading the wikipedia article, one discovers that this famous man attended school until he flunked 10th grade. Certainly a strange candidate for homeschool hero status.
Moving onto another hero. Clicking on "Jason Taylor" (NFL player) yields more evidence that slopply history is being written: He was homeschooled for about three years.
At the end of the day, is this how homeschoolers and their defenders (including myself) wish to promote this noble cause? With such reasoning demonstrated above, public school advocates could use any homeschooler who attend school for three years (just invert Jason Taylor's profile). Or claim a famous person who was homeschooled until grade 10 as their own--if only because afterward he entered public school (just invert Peter Jennings' profile).
At best, this is equivocal reasoning.
Perhaps a more notable list should be examined. After all, not all who write lists on the web are qualified to do so. So, after googling, several lists were discovered (both online, in books and on the radio). The lists are long. The work was hard. At the end, five are presented below as examples of the typical educational backgrounds during that time-period:
- John Witherspoon (Educator/Statesman): One problem with using encyclopedias as
sources of detailed information is that they are not sources of detailed information. They cover more of the adult achievements than the particular facts of any person's childhood. For such facts, biographies, eye-witnesses and the like must be examined. And that is a lot of work. In this case, reading the eulogy of Witherspoon (given by his personal friend, John Rodgers) paints a different educational picture: "He was sent, very young to the public school at Haddington: His father spared neither expense nor pains in his education." At age fourteen he attended the university of Edinburgh (p.24, The Works of Rev. John Witherspoon).
- Thomas Jefferson (President): Reading his own biography ought to have dispelled this historical myth years ago. He testifies that he was schooled at age five then sent to a Latin school at age nine. Digging into his history will show that the early schooling was done with a tutor at his home plantation along with other children. The Latin school he attended was fifty miles away at the Dover Church grammar school (where he boarded with a friend's family--a not uncommon activity in the southern gentry) (Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, Brodie, p. 49, 51).
- Patrick Henry (Statesman): Of course Patrick Henry is dear to my heart (as is Witherspoon) because of his Calvinism (another topic that falls off the historical radar of modern conservative "scholarship"). His grandson, William Wirt Henry, compiled the facts of Patrick's life and concluded: "He was sent to a common English school until about the age of ten years, where he learned to read and write, and acquired some little knowledge of arithmetic.” Afterwards, his father tutored him and other local boys in Latin and some other topics (cp. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry, Vaughan, p.29).
- James Madison (President): The childhood of Madison demonstrates the modern historical problems of pinning down exactly how individual early Americans were educated. Many papers, receipts and diaries are missing. In the case of Madison, an incomplete paper trail exists, but what does exist demonstrates that at age three and nine his father was paying a tutor for his son's education. Presumably his mother and grandmother helped as well. More complete evidence demonstrates that at age eleven he was sent to Donald Robertson's school, 70 miles from home! Later, at around age sixteen he was home with another tutor who lived with them and taught the other younger siblings. Again, not uncommon in the south (James Madison: A Biography, Ketcham, p. 17; James Madison, A Biography in His Own Words, ed. Peterson, p.16).
- John Jay (Supreme Court Judge): Lastly, we have another favorite Calvinist of mine. John Jay learned some Latin before the age of 8 when he was sent off to a school in New Rochelle, 8 miles away (a Huguenot (Calvinist) town). He continued until age eleven and then went home and studied under a private tutor, George Murray. He attended college at age 14 (John Jay: Founding Father, Stahr, p. 9).
Close examination of the above samples reveals a mixed approach to education that is being matched today in homeschooling circles. Too often the modern rhetoric has highlighted the superiority of homeschooling in the abstract, as though homeschooling was just junior, mom and dad. In reality, more and more families are mixing some form of tutoring into their child's curriculum. Many families are discovering that no family is an island and that God has graced his kingdom with differing abilities, with some families stronger in one academic area than others. But this is yet another posting for the future.
The conclusion of the matter is that rewriting history rewrites our expectations: "If only we could create that homeschooling environment, we could turn back the clock!"--a cry I've heard and read over the years. We will not achieve another Patrick Henry simply by homeschooling. Another James Madison will not arise from the ashes of America simply by homeschooling. Homeschooling is but one means to an end. And it operated in a Christian culture that is lost today (think Sabbatarian, confessional, & Calvinistic). If we want to turn back the clock, we need such a milieu again.
Retelling internet educational fables only sets up the homeschoolers and their supporters for a humiliating fall. Instead the focus should be on supporting one another in love. Hyping history in favor of one educational method over another just turns into a in-house fight--a form a tribalism that will eat the church from within. Instead, the spirit of 1 Corinthians 13 should prevail and the truth of history should be supported. In fact, homeschoolers should support private schoolers; private schoolers should help homeschoolers; and churches should nurture their members on the pure Gospel of Christ and the Law of His kingdom.
SDG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)