For those who prefer audio interviews, here is the entire four-part series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Otherwise, check out the written series of related articles here.
Showing posts with label Homeschooling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homeschooling. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Denver pastors discuss solutions to family crisis
"At a symposium in Denver, a panel of three pastors discussed why Christian families are losing their children to the world and how this can be prevented. Local homeschooling advocate and internet talk show host, Rev. Swanson, was on the panel presenting his vision of family restoration. The event was hosted at Park Hill Presbyterian Church on Monday night, April 2."
Continued here.
Continued here.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
A sketch of the history of age-segregation among Christians
The following is a sketch of the facts I have uncovered in my research over the last few years in response to claims from many homeschoolers and/or family-integrated proponents. It is a slightly modified reprint (spelling and format) from the original post at puritanboard.com:
Hello Boliver,
If you are referring to Divided, please see the comments at the puritan forum here. And my review here.
It is important to know that the organization behind the movie actually has two problems with the modern "youth programs": separation from parents and age-segregation. Thus the history of Christian schooling as well as catechizing are both relevant in showing the gross inaccuracies of this movement.
[To fully understand the NCFIC and her leaders please read my article, What is a Family Integrated Church? (According to a current church member of Mr. Brown's church and one-time intern for Mr. Brown and currently employed with the NCFIC, Mr. Glick, my article was accurate).]
Here is a sample of the history of catechizing (and school class divisions).
Jewish Church: "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." (A Religious Encyclopedia, Schaff, 2262)
Ancient Church: “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, ibid)
Reformation & Post-Reformation:
The Geneva Academy had two divisions: schola privata and schola publica (the Academy proper). The schola privata (the lower school) was divided into seven grades, admitting children as young as age six. Most boys stayed in each grade a year, but could advance earlier. School began at six in the summer and seven in the winter and lasted until four in the afternoon. Children went home under escort from nine to eleven in the morning. Classes were on Saturday as well and included an afternoon recess. The children sung Psalms one hour a day as well. Catechism classes were held Sunday afternoons. (The History and Character of Calvinism, John T. McNeil (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 194ff. cp. Calvin and the Biblical Languages, John Currid (Christian Focus Publications) 2007).
Article 21 of the Dutch Church Order of Dordt (1618) orders that “consistories everywhere shall see to it that there are good school teachers not only to teach the children reading, writing, languages, and the liberal arts, but also to instruct them in godliness and in the Catechism.” (cf. the full Dordt instruction for catechetical teaching here).
"John Knox devised a system of Sunday schools, at the very beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, which system has been in operation in that country more or less extensively ever since. So that the Sunday schools which now exist in Scotland are derived, not from the system of Raikes in England, but are only a revival of the old system of the Reformer. These schools are frequently referred to in the records of that Church, and in the biographies of good men connected with it. In 1647, the General Assembly recommended to all universities to take account of their scholars on the Sabbath day of the sermons, and of their lessons in the catechism [students at "universities" could be as young as twelve]. John Brown, the godly carrier, had in his day a Sabbath school at Priesthill. It is stated, on the authority of Rev. John Brown, D. D., of Langton, Berwickshire, that Sunday schools were in existence in Glasgow, and other places, in 1707. They were in operation in Glasgow, and other places, in 1759, and also in many places in 1782." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, p.20)
The pastors and elders of the Bohemian Unity of Brethren church would assemble the older children of the church after the worship services to examine how well they retained the sermon; “hence our ancestors held separate addresses to the different classes, the beginners, the proficients, the perfect; also to the single, and again to the married by themselves: which practice it is evident was not without its advantage.” "At the conclusion of the noon and afternoon service, the elder youths and girls remain, and are examined by the preacher (one of the elders assisting him with the former, and one of the matrons with the latter) to ascertain what attention they have paid that day in hearing the word of God, and how much each has retained. Moreover, during the Lent season, on Wednesday and Friday evening, meetings are held, termed salva (from the hymn..."Save us, Jesus, heavenly King,") in which the mystery of redemption is diligently inculcated, especially upon the young." (Church Constitution of the Bohemian, 136ff.)
Early America:
The church in Norwich, Connecticut, in the Spring of 1675 covenanted together to instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord: “We do therefore this Day Solemnly Covenant to Endeavour uprightly by dependence upon the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our only Saviour. First, That our Children shall be brought up in the Admonition of the Lord, as in our Families, so in publick; that all the Males who are eight or nine years of age, shall be presented before the Lord in his congregation every Lord’s Day to be Catechised, until they be about thirteen years in age. Second. Those about thirteen years of age, both male and female, shall frequent the meetings appointed in private for their instruction, while they continue under family government, or until they are received to full communion in the church.” (110ff. The Ecclesiastical History of New England, p.665 )
"It is well known that every respectable family had a regular weekly exercise in the catechism [in early New England]; and also that once a week in some towns, or once a month in others, the minister gather the children and youth of his parish, at two o’clock, on Saturday afternoon to catechize them." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, 21)
As late as 1808 (before Sunday Schools reached critical mass), the General Association of the Congregationalists in Connecticut, “That they [parents] require them to attend public catechisings till they are fourteen years of age, and thenceforward, during their minority, to attend seasons, that may be appointed by their pastor, for the religious instruction of youth.” The Panoplist, 1808, p.159
"My first acquaintance with Mr. Donnelly [early 1800s] was when I became a pupil in his school in my father's neighbourhood, in Chester District, S. C. I entered his school at an early age; and as he was my first teacher, (my parents excepted,) so he was also among the last. Under his tuition I studied the elementary branches, such as reading, spelling, etc., and recited to him the Larger Catechism. The Bible was not then excluded from the school, on the ground of its being a sectarian book…the afternoon of every alternate Saturday was spent in reciting Catechisms and portions of Scripture, which had been previously committed to memory- He was a rigid disciplinarian of the Old School…” Letter, 1862, Rev. McMillan to William Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 9, p. 26
If you have any more questions please ask.
If interested in more of how Christians educated over the centuries, please see my blog, ChristianNurture.blogspot.com
Additional (2.7.12): I have combed some of the sessional minutes of Scottish churches in the 1600s: they had age-segregated Sunday school between services. I'll gather that info soon Lord willing.
Hello Boliver,
If you are referring to Divided, please see the comments at the puritan forum here. And my review here.
It is important to know that the organization behind the movie actually has two problems with the modern "youth programs": separation from parents and age-segregation. Thus the history of Christian schooling as well as catechizing are both relevant in showing the gross inaccuracies of this movement.
[To fully understand the NCFIC and her leaders please read my article, What is a Family Integrated Church? (According to a current church member of Mr. Brown's church and one-time intern for Mr. Brown and currently employed with the NCFIC, Mr. Glick, my article was accurate).]
Here is a sample of the history of catechizing (and school class divisions).
Jewish Church: "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." (A Religious Encyclopedia, Schaff, 2262)
Ancient Church: “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, ibid)
Reformation & Post-Reformation:
The Geneva Academy had two divisions: schola privata and schola publica (the Academy proper). The schola privata (the lower school) was divided into seven grades, admitting children as young as age six. Most boys stayed in each grade a year, but could advance earlier. School began at six in the summer and seven in the winter and lasted until four in the afternoon. Children went home under escort from nine to eleven in the morning. Classes were on Saturday as well and included an afternoon recess. The children sung Psalms one hour a day as well. Catechism classes were held Sunday afternoons. (The History and Character of Calvinism, John T. McNeil (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 194ff. cp. Calvin and the Biblical Languages, John Currid (Christian Focus Publications) 2007).
Article 21 of the Dutch Church Order of Dordt (1618) orders that “consistories everywhere shall see to it that there are good school teachers not only to teach the children reading, writing, languages, and the liberal arts, but also to instruct them in godliness and in the Catechism.” (cf. the full Dordt instruction for catechetical teaching here).
"John Knox devised a system of Sunday schools, at the very beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, which system has been in operation in that country more or less extensively ever since. So that the Sunday schools which now exist in Scotland are derived, not from the system of Raikes in England, but are only a revival of the old system of the Reformer. These schools are frequently referred to in the records of that Church, and in the biographies of good men connected with it. In 1647, the General Assembly recommended to all universities to take account of their scholars on the Sabbath day of the sermons, and of their lessons in the catechism [students at "universities" could be as young as twelve]. John Brown, the godly carrier, had in his day a Sabbath school at Priesthill. It is stated, on the authority of Rev. John Brown, D. D., of Langton, Berwickshire, that Sunday schools were in existence in Glasgow, and other places, in 1707. They were in operation in Glasgow, and other places, in 1759, and also in many places in 1782." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, p.20)
The pastors and elders of the Bohemian Unity of Brethren church would assemble the older children of the church after the worship services to examine how well they retained the sermon; “hence our ancestors held separate addresses to the different classes, the beginners, the proficients, the perfect; also to the single, and again to the married by themselves: which practice it is evident was not without its advantage.” "At the conclusion of the noon and afternoon service, the elder youths and girls remain, and are examined by the preacher (one of the elders assisting him with the former, and one of the matrons with the latter) to ascertain what attention they have paid that day in hearing the word of God, and how much each has retained. Moreover, during the Lent season, on Wednesday and Friday evening, meetings are held, termed salva (from the hymn..."Save us, Jesus, heavenly King,") in which the mystery of redemption is diligently inculcated, especially upon the young." (Church Constitution of the Bohemian, 136ff.)
Early America:
The church in Norwich, Connecticut, in the Spring of 1675 covenanted together to instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord: “We do therefore this Day Solemnly Covenant to Endeavour uprightly by dependence upon the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our only Saviour. First, That our Children shall be brought up in the Admonition of the Lord, as in our Families, so in publick; that all the Males who are eight or nine years of age, shall be presented before the Lord in his congregation every Lord’s Day to be Catechised, until they be about thirteen years in age. Second. Those about thirteen years of age, both male and female, shall frequent the meetings appointed in private for their instruction, while they continue under family government, or until they are received to full communion in the church.” (110ff. The Ecclesiastical History of New England, p.665 )
"It is well known that every respectable family had a regular weekly exercise in the catechism [in early New England]; and also that once a week in some towns, or once a month in others, the minister gather the children and youth of his parish, at two o’clock, on Saturday afternoon to catechize them." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, 21)
As late as 1808 (before Sunday Schools reached critical mass), the General Association of the Congregationalists in Connecticut, “That they [parents] require them to attend public catechisings till they are fourteen years of age, and thenceforward, during their minority, to attend seasons, that may be appointed by their pastor, for the religious instruction of youth.” The Panoplist, 1808, p.159
"My first acquaintance with Mr. Donnelly [early 1800s] was when I became a pupil in his school in my father's neighbourhood, in Chester District, S. C. I entered his school at an early age; and as he was my first teacher, (my parents excepted,) so he was also among the last. Under his tuition I studied the elementary branches, such as reading, spelling, etc., and recited to him the Larger Catechism. The Bible was not then excluded from the school, on the ground of its being a sectarian book…the afternoon of every alternate Saturday was spent in reciting Catechisms and portions of Scripture, which had been previously committed to memory- He was a rigid disciplinarian of the Old School…” Letter, 1862, Rev. McMillan to William Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 9, p. 26
If you have any more questions please ask.
If interested in more of how Christians educated over the centuries, please see my blog, ChristianNurture.blogspot.com
Additional (2.7.12): I have combed some of the sessional minutes of Scottish churches in the 1600s: they had age-segregated Sunday school between services. I'll gather that info soon Lord willing.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Samples of catechizing over the centuries
I was asked at puritanboard.com about the history of catechizing. Although I have focused on the broader question of how Christians educated their children over the centuries, I still have much information on this narrow question.
Below was my very short answer:
If you are referring to Divided, please see the comments at the puritan forum here. And my review here.
It is important to know that the organization behind the movie actually has two problems with the modern "youth programs": separation from parents and age-segregation. Thus the history of Christian schooling as well as catechizing are both relevant in showing the gross inaccuracies of this movement.
[To fully understand the NCFIC and her leaders please read my article, What is a Family Integrated Church? (According to a current church member of Mr. Brown's church and one-time intern for Mr. Brown and currently employed with the NCFIC, Mr. Glick, my article was accurate).]
Here is a sample of the history of catechizing (and school class divisions).
Jewish Church:
"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." (A Religious encyclopaedia, Schaff, 2262)
Ancient Church:
“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, ibid)
Reformation and Post-Reformation:
The Geneva Academy had two divisions: schola privata and schola publica (the Academy proper). The schola privata (the lower school) was divided into seven grades, admitting children as young as age six. Most boys stayed in each grade a year, but could advance earlier. School began at six in the summer and seven in the winter and lasted until four in the afternoon. Children went home under escort from nine to eleven in the morning. Classes were on Saturday as well and included an afternoon recess. The children sung Psalms one hour a day as well. Catechism classes were held Sunday afternoons. (The History and Character of Calvinism, John T. McNeil (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 194ff. cp. Calvin and the Biblical Languages, John Currid (Christian Focus Publications) 2007).
Article 21 of the Dutch Church Order of Dordt (1618) orders that:
"In order that the Christian youth may be diligently instructed in the principles of religion and be trained in piety three modes of catechizing should be employed I. In the houses by the parents II. In the schools by school masters III. In the churches by ministers elders and catechizers those specially appointed for the purpose." (Full quote here).
It also stated:
"That these may diligently discharge their trust the Christian magistrates shall be requested to promote by their authority so sacred and necessary a work and all who have the oversight and visitation of the churches and schools shall be required to pay special attention to this matter."
[This civil enforcement was also enacted in New England and similar oversight in Geneva. Pastor oversight was neigh universally encouraged.]
Now, for the parts more germane to the movie:
"The schoolmasters shall instruct their scholars according to their age and capacity at least two days in the week not only by causing them to commit to memory but by instilling into their minds an acquaintance with the truths of the Catechism. For this end three forms of the Catechism adapted to the three fold circumstances and ages of the young shall be used. The first shall be for the young children comprising the Articles of Faith or Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Institution of the Sacraments and Church Discipline with some short prayers and plain questions adapted to the three parts of the Catechism. The second shall be a short compendium of the Catechism of the Palatinate or Heidelberg used in our churches in which those who are somewhat more advanced than the former shall be instructed. The third shall be the Catechism of the Palatinate or Heidelberg adopted by our churches for the youth still more advanced in years and knowledge."
[Radical nuts following evolutionary though? I think not. But godly men using the light of nature to differentiate between babes, children, youths and adults--broad categories followed by many cultures.]
"John Knox devised a system of Sunday schools, at the very beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, which system has been in operation in that country more or less extensively ever since. So that the Sunday schools which now exist in Scotland are derived, not from the system of Raikes in England, but are only a revival of the old system of the Reformer. These schools are frequently referred to in the records of that Church, and in the biographies of good men connected with it. In 1647, the General Assembly recommended to all universities to take account of their scholars on the Sabbath dny of the sermons, and of their lessons in the catechism [students at "universities" could be as young as twelve]. John Brown, the godly carrier, had in his day a Sabbath school at Priesthill. It is stated, on the authority of Rev. John Brown, D. D., of Langton, Berwickshire, that Sunday schools were in existence in Glasgow, and other places, in 1707. Ihey were in operation in Glasgow, and other places, in 1759, and also in many places in 1782." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, p.20)
The pastors and elders of the Bohemian Unity of Brethren church would assemble the older children of the church after the worship services to examine how well they retained the sermon; “hence our ancestors held separate addresses to the different classes, the beginners, the proficients, the perfect; also to the single, and again to the married by themselves: which practice it is evident was not without its advantage.” "At the conclusion of the noon and afternoon service, the elder youths and girls remain, and are examined by the preacher (one of the elders assisting him with the former, and one of the matrons with the latter) to ascertain what attention they have paid that day in hearing the word of God, and how much each has retained. Moreover, during the Lent season, on Wednesday and Friday evening, meetings are held, termed salva (from the hymn Salva nos Jesu, rex cmli, "Save us, Jesus, heavenly King,") in which the mystery of redemption is diligently inculcated, especially upon the young." (Church Constitution of the Bohemian, 136ff.)
Early America:
The church in Norwich, Connecticut, in the Spring of 1675 covenanted together to instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord: “We do therefore this Day Solemnly Covenant to Endeavour uprightly by dependence upon the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our only Saviour. First, That our Children shall be brought up in the Admonition of the Lord, as in our Families, so in publick; that all the Males who are eight or nine years of age, shall be presented before the Lord in his congregation every Lord’s Day to be Catechised, until they be about thirteen years in age. Second. Those about thirteen years of age, both male and female, shall frequent the meetings appointed in private for their instruction, while they continue under family government, or until they are received to full communion in the church.” (The Ecclesiastical History of New England, p.665 )
"It is well known that every respectable family had a regular weekly exercise in the catechism [in early New England]; and also that once a week in some towns, or once a month in others, the minister gather the children and youth of his parish, at two o’clock, on Saturday afternoon to catechize them." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, 21)
As late as 1808 (before Sunday Schools reached critical mass), the General Association of the Congregationalists in Connecticut, “That they [parents] require them to attend public catechisings till they are fourteen years of age, and thenceforward, during their minority, to attend seasons, that may be appointed by their pastor, for the religious instruction of youth.” (Panoplist, 1808, p.159.)
"My first acquaintance with Mr. Donnelly [early 1800s] was when I became a pupil in his school in my father's neighbourhood, in Chester District, S. C. I entered his school at an early age; and as he was my first teacher, (my parents excepted,) so he was also among the last. Under his tuition I studied the elementary branches, such as reading, spelling, etc., and recited to him the Larger Catechism. The Bible was not then excluded from the school, on the ground of its being a sectarian book…the afternoon of every alternate Saturday was spent in reciting Catechisms and portions of Scripture, which had been previously committed to memory- IIe was a rigid disciplinarian of the Old School…” (Letter, 1862, Rev. McMillan to William Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 9, p. 26.)
If you have any more questions please ask.
Below was my very short answer:
If you are referring to Divided, please see the comments at the puritan forum here. And my review here.
It is important to know that the organization behind the movie actually has two problems with the modern "youth programs": separation from parents and age-segregation. Thus the history of Christian schooling as well as catechizing are both relevant in showing the gross inaccuracies of this movement.
[To fully understand the NCFIC and her leaders please read my article, What is a Family Integrated Church? (According to a current church member of Mr. Brown's church and one-time intern for Mr. Brown and currently employed with the NCFIC, Mr. Glick, my article was accurate).]
Here is a sample of the history of catechizing (and school class divisions).
Jewish Church:
"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." (A Religious encyclopaedia, Schaff, 2262)
Ancient Church:
“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, ibid)
Reformation and Post-Reformation:
The Geneva Academy had two divisions: schola privata and schola publica (the Academy proper). The schola privata (the lower school) was divided into seven grades, admitting children as young as age six. Most boys stayed in each grade a year, but could advance earlier. School began at six in the summer and seven in the winter and lasted until four in the afternoon. Children went home under escort from nine to eleven in the morning. Classes were on Saturday as well and included an afternoon recess. The children sung Psalms one hour a day as well. Catechism classes were held Sunday afternoons. (The History and Character of Calvinism, John T. McNeil (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 194ff. cp. Calvin and the Biblical Languages, John Currid (Christian Focus Publications) 2007).
Article 21 of the Dutch Church Order of Dordt (1618) orders that:
"In order that the Christian youth may be diligently instructed in the principles of religion and be trained in piety three modes of catechizing should be employed I. In the houses by the parents II. In the schools by school masters III. In the churches by ministers elders and catechizers those specially appointed for the purpose." (Full quote here).
It also stated:
"That these may diligently discharge their trust the Christian magistrates shall be requested to promote by their authority so sacred and necessary a work and all who have the oversight and visitation of the churches and schools shall be required to pay special attention to this matter."
[This civil enforcement was also enacted in New England and similar oversight in Geneva. Pastor oversight was neigh universally encouraged.]
Now, for the parts more germane to the movie:
"The schoolmasters shall instruct their scholars according to their age and capacity at least two days in the week not only by causing them to commit to memory but by instilling into their minds an acquaintance with the truths of the Catechism. For this end three forms of the Catechism adapted to the three fold circumstances and ages of the young shall be used. The first shall be for the young children comprising the Articles of Faith or Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Institution of the Sacraments and Church Discipline with some short prayers and plain questions adapted to the three parts of the Catechism. The second shall be a short compendium of the Catechism of the Palatinate or Heidelberg used in our churches in which those who are somewhat more advanced than the former shall be instructed. The third shall be the Catechism of the Palatinate or Heidelberg adopted by our churches for the youth still more advanced in years and knowledge."
[Radical nuts following evolutionary though? I think not. But godly men using the light of nature to differentiate between babes, children, youths and adults--broad categories followed by many cultures.]
"John Knox devised a system of Sunday schools, at the very beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, which system has been in operation in that country more or less extensively ever since. So that the Sunday schools which now exist in Scotland are derived, not from the system of Raikes in England, but are only a revival of the old system of the Reformer. These schools are frequently referred to in the records of that Church, and in the biographies of good men connected with it. In 1647, the General Assembly recommended to all universities to take account of their scholars on the Sabbath dny of the sermons, and of their lessons in the catechism [students at "universities" could be as young as twelve]. John Brown, the godly carrier, had in his day a Sabbath school at Priesthill. It is stated, on the authority of Rev. John Brown, D. D., of Langton, Berwickshire, that Sunday schools were in existence in Glasgow, and other places, in 1707. Ihey were in operation in Glasgow, and other places, in 1759, and also in many places in 1782." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, p.20)
The pastors and elders of the Bohemian Unity of Brethren church would assemble the older children of the church after the worship services to examine how well they retained the sermon; “hence our ancestors held separate addresses to the different classes, the beginners, the proficients, the perfect; also to the single, and again to the married by themselves: which practice it is evident was not without its advantage.” "At the conclusion of the noon and afternoon service, the elder youths and girls remain, and are examined by the preacher (one of the elders assisting him with the former, and one of the matrons with the latter) to ascertain what attention they have paid that day in hearing the word of God, and how much each has retained. Moreover, during the Lent season, on Wednesday and Friday evening, meetings are held, termed salva (from the hymn Salva nos Jesu, rex cmli, "Save us, Jesus, heavenly King,") in which the mystery of redemption is diligently inculcated, especially upon the young." (Church Constitution of the Bohemian, 136ff.)
Early America:
The church in Norwich, Connecticut, in the Spring of 1675 covenanted together to instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord: “We do therefore this Day Solemnly Covenant to Endeavour uprightly by dependence upon the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our only Saviour. First, That our Children shall be brought up in the Admonition of the Lord, as in our Families, so in publick; that all the Males who are eight or nine years of age, shall be presented before the Lord in his congregation every Lord’s Day to be Catechised, until they be about thirteen years in age. Second. Those about thirteen years of age, both male and female, shall frequent the meetings appointed in private for their instruction, while they continue under family government, or until they are received to full communion in the church.” (The Ecclesiastical History of New England, p.665 )
"It is well known that every respectable family had a regular weekly exercise in the catechism [in early New England]; and also that once a week in some towns, or once a month in others, the minister gather the children and youth of his parish, at two o’clock, on Saturday afternoon to catechize them." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, 21)
As late as 1808 (before Sunday Schools reached critical mass), the General Association of the Congregationalists in Connecticut, “That they [parents] require them to attend public catechisings till they are fourteen years of age, and thenceforward, during their minority, to attend seasons, that may be appointed by their pastor, for the religious instruction of youth.” (Panoplist, 1808, p.159.)
"My first acquaintance with Mr. Donnelly [early 1800s] was when I became a pupil in his school in my father's neighbourhood, in Chester District, S. C. I entered his school at an early age; and as he was my first teacher, (my parents excepted,) so he was also among the last. Under his tuition I studied the elementary branches, such as reading, spelling, etc., and recited to him the Larger Catechism. The Bible was not then excluded from the school, on the ground of its being a sectarian book…the afternoon of every alternate Saturday was spent in reciting Catechisms and portions of Scripture, which had been previously committed to memory- IIe was a rigid disciplinarian of the Old School…” (Letter, 1862, Rev. McMillan to William Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 9, p. 26.)
If you have any more questions please ask.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Unity of Church and Family
Although I have critiqued the family-integrated movement, it is not enough to show its errors. An alternative must be presented. And here it is:
Uniting Church and Family
Uniting Church and Family
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Divided the movie
Why are churches losing upwards of 80% of the youth?
Why are Christian youth increasing in childishness?
What can be done to stop the demise of the next generation?
A new, provocative movie, Divided, seeks to give an answer. The movie was shown on June 17th at the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference in north Denver.
Summary
The movie was fifty minutes long. The producer, Mr. LeClerk, takes the viewer on a grim journey into the heart of youth ministries. He interviews church kids, youth ministry experts, statisticians, and pastors.
In an ever-spiraling descent into marketing madness, the film ably portrays the deep-seated pragmatism of the teenagers and their would-be pied-pipers. One youth leader bluntly told the camera that the youth did not need more Biblical truth but more practical things, more relationships, more fun.
Mr. LeClerk then "discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs..." The roots do not begin with Mr. Raikes of late eighteenth-century England but with Plato and Rousseau. And even more, there is no biblical precedent for such programs. Therefore, the solution is to tear down the entire youth ministry--branch, root and all.
To rescue a lost generation it will take churches and families following the Word of God. Churches should stop usurping parental responsibilities. And parents should take back their God-given duty to train and nurture their own children. This will rescue the next generation.
Analysis
The movie was created in conjunction with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The president of this organisation, Mr. Brown, figures predominately in the movie.
The photography, mood and music were spot-on. This is obviously a professionally made film. The pacing was good. Its presentation was not over-the-top or in-your-face, but subtle and dramatic. Aesthetically, the movie deserves full marks.
But presentation aside, what of the content? Given the applause at the end of the Friday night showing in Denver, it grabbed the audience. Setting the problem up with multiple teen-interviews, peppered with real-time video of Christian "rock concerts," LeClerk masterfully guides the audience through the entertainment-minded youth ministries of today.
This is a serious problem. Children, teenagers and youth alike are baptized in a sea of childish entertainment all for the sake of "relevance." If the statistics are only partially accurate, they are astounding enough. Too many youth are leaving the church.
And the parental problem is equally heinous: too many parents feel godly sending their children off to youth camp while neglecting family worship, home discipleship and basic doctrinal fidelity. Added to this problem are too many churches willing to accept the status quo.
In fact, a Pew study shows 57% of confessing Evangelicals deny that Christ is the only way to heaven. Barna numbers suggest that being a homeschooler is no sure defense either: half of those polled believe that salvation is not by faith alone.
Although the show does a good job presenting the youth problem, it misses the wider context of that problem. With such wide-spread doctrinal ignorance, is it any wonder the youth leave the shallow churches?
Unfortunately, the history section leaves much to be desired. Pointing out that Plato wished to send children to the state schools is not the same as proving this as the intellectual source of today's age-segregation. The omission of the fact that the Reformers and Puritans practiced age-segregation is another problem.
What of the solution: to demolish youth ministries and incorporate family discipleship?
The solution is wonderful...if understood correctly. But proper understanding cannot come from the movie since it leaves out important pieces of information. For instance, Mr. Brown believes there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (see his book, A Weed in the Church). Likewise, Mr. Phillips thinks there are times to speak to teenagers as teenagers.
In other words, the rhetoric of the movie would forbid any and all age-segregation. When in actuality the leading proponents have a more nuanced position. If the film were twenty-minutes long this lack of nuance could be tolerated.
What family discipleship entails was lightly touched upon. But the proper role of the church was not clearly articulated. In contrast, Mr. Brown's book helpfully clarifies that the pastors and laymen have a role in the life of the youth.
Overall, the movie delivers the content and delivers it well. The problem is that the content is one-sided. There is a youth problem but there is a larger problem of Gospel ignorance. It would be better to read the book, but at least the movie will challenge Christians to rethink the role of youth ministries.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
In Defense of Homeschooling [repost]
In my naivete, I thought only the secular school sponsors ranted against home education.
But I was wrong.
I recently discovered that Christians could be against homeschooling. For instance, a professor of theology strongly discouraged homeschooling as a viable option. He may have allowed it under special circumstances but such was not articulated.
I have also heard second-hand from reliable ministers that homeschooling has been discouraged by other ministers. Yet as near as I can tell this is a minority position.
Nevertheless, I think homeschooling should be defended from such detractors.
First of all, parents have Christian liberty in this realm. Sending their children to a good Christian school, using a good tutor, homeschooling or combining all of the above are well within the acceptable parameters of the Bible. What the Bible does not forbid is allowable if used correctly. The Bible does not forbid homeschooling. Therefore, homeschooling is a viable option.
Second, there is no universally acceptable manner to educate children. Naturally, what decision is made in this regard is heavily dependent upon the family's financial, academic, ecclesiastical and similar circumstances. As much as such circumstances change so there are that many combinations of acceptable educational methods. And mature parents are usually the best judges of their own circumstances.
Third, the Bible assigns the parents as the primary guardians, giving them the responsibility to determine the best nurturing method for the child (Eph. 6:4). Although the Word of God does not specify all the areas and ways to nurture a child, the light of nature and the clear assumption of the Word puts questions of diet, exercise, entertainment, etc. as areas in which parents are granted authority. Certainly, this includes education.
Fourth, religious instruction is assigned to parents (Deut. 6:7; Proverbs). Religious instruction has historically been propagated in the family through daily family worship, catechetical instruction and daily impromptu discussions. Religious instruction being a greater subject of education than math, for instance, it follows from the greater to the lesser that parents have the option to instruct in less sublime topics, if able.
Fifth, history demonstrates the acceptability of homeschooling. Some Puritans practiced it. And some church leaders were partly or mostly homechooled. Historically, homeschooling has never been condemned by the church nor denounced by her leaders.
None of this should be taken to excuse bad homeschoooling. As with any enculturation tool, homeschooling can be abused. This defense of properly applied homeschooling does not defend those families that wish to isolate themselves from the local church. The church of God has her own duty to instruct her members, young or old. Nor is this a defense of those who wish to use homeschooling as a new relational center, replacing a common set of doctrine and practice with a new set of emphases.
Rather, good homeschooling does not consider itself in isolation from the Christian community. It is concerned with doctrinal and practical purity. Furthermore, many families in my experience do not exclusively homeschool but mix it with other approaches.
So, the next time someone wishes to dismiss homeschooling as some suspicious aberration, point out these truths to them. And above all, do not become overly agitated--there are bigger concerns we ought to be worried about.
But I was wrong.
I recently discovered that Christians could be against homeschooling. For instance, a professor of theology strongly discouraged homeschooling as a viable option. He may have allowed it under special circumstances but such was not articulated.
I have also heard second-hand from reliable ministers that homeschooling has been discouraged by other ministers. Yet as near as I can tell this is a minority position.
Nevertheless, I think homeschooling should be defended from such detractors.
First of all, parents have Christian liberty in this realm. Sending their children to a good Christian school, using a good tutor, homeschooling or combining all of the above are well within the acceptable parameters of the Bible. What the Bible does not forbid is allowable if used correctly. The Bible does not forbid homeschooling. Therefore, homeschooling is a viable option.
Second, there is no universally acceptable manner to educate children. Naturally, what decision is made in this regard is heavily dependent upon the family's financial, academic, ecclesiastical and similar circumstances. As much as such circumstances change so there are that many combinations of acceptable educational methods. And mature parents are usually the best judges of their own circumstances.
Third, the Bible assigns the parents as the primary guardians, giving them the responsibility to determine the best nurturing method for the child (Eph. 6:4). Although the Word of God does not specify all the areas and ways to nurture a child, the light of nature and the clear assumption of the Word puts questions of diet, exercise, entertainment, etc. as areas in which parents are granted authority. Certainly, this includes education.
Fourth, religious instruction is assigned to parents (Deut. 6:7; Proverbs). Religious instruction has historically been propagated in the family through daily family worship, catechetical instruction and daily impromptu discussions. Religious instruction being a greater subject of education than math, for instance, it follows from the greater to the lesser that parents have the option to instruct in less sublime topics, if able.
Fifth, history demonstrates the acceptability of homeschooling. Some Puritans practiced it. And some church leaders were partly or mostly homechooled. Historically, homeschooling has never been condemned by the church nor denounced by her leaders.
None of this should be taken to excuse bad homeschoooling. As with any enculturation tool, homeschooling can be abused. This defense of properly applied homeschooling does not defend those families that wish to isolate themselves from the local church. The church of God has her own duty to instruct her members, young or old. Nor is this a defense of those who wish to use homeschooling as a new relational center, replacing a common set of doctrine and practice with a new set of emphases.
Rather, good homeschooling does not consider itself in isolation from the Christian community. It is concerned with doctrinal and practical purity. Furthermore, many families in my experience do not exclusively homeschool but mix it with other approaches.
So, the next time someone wishes to dismiss homeschooling as some suspicious aberration, point out these truths to them. And above all, do not become overly agitated--there are bigger concerns we ought to be worried about.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Future of Homeschooling [Repost]
Over the last two years there has been much brouhaha about the explosion of homeschooling. Statistics and numbers fly readily from the pens of writers and lips of hosts: 2 million nation-wide; double-digit growth; incredible SAT scores. Hyped claims of revival, reformation and the culture-changing power of homeschooling have mushroomed. As one bright-eyed romantic exclaimed, homeschooling has been a “veritable reformation of life” among a dying culture.
Sadly, this optimism is driven by an uninformed idealism. The 2 million number is suspect because unprovable: most of the number includes an assumption about how many homeschoolers have not been counted. The National Center for Educational Statistics has the latest number at about 1.1 million—with 18% of that number including students that attend 25 hours or less of class time outside the home. So, practically the 1.1 million number should ignore 18 percent. And if the 2 million number is accurate, it should shrink proportionally as well: 902 hundred-thousand and 1.640 million respectively.
When the retention factor is analyzed, the future of homeschooling becomes more questionable. The latest 2007 Peabody Journal of Education summary paints a more accurate picture: “much homeschooling occurs in intervals of 1 to 4 years. This implies that the total number of 18-year-olds in 2006 who have been homeschooled at least intermittently is around 375,000, or about 10%.” Only a 63% retention rate exists into the second year of homeschooling. And after year six 48% are still homeschooling (only 15% for secular families). Similar numbers are acknowledged by some homeschooling leaders.
There’s more. Many assume that most homeschoolers are college-educated, middle-class, white conservatives. However, a Barna poll suggests that is not so. 49% of these families fit this description. And just over half (51%) are not classified as “born again”. Only 15% are (loosely) Evangelical. Half of the homeschoolers polled consider themselves somewhere between conservative and liberal.
More importantly, the Barna Group numbers display a level of poor spirituality I had only guessed at from my own anecdotal experience: most homeschoolers deny that Satan exists and half believe that salvation is obtained through good works.
The future of homeschooling is decidedly not looking bright. Even if the numbers are actually growing, who cares? If the numbers grow but the spiritual life does not grow what have homeschoolers achieved? What have the leaders wrought? If vast numbers are ignorant of the depths of their sins and the power of the Gospel of sovereign grace, hypocrisy and false assurance will rise. Then the future may be pleasant people, clean neighborhoods, and whiten sepulchers full of dead men’s bones.
The future of homeschooling is bright if and only if the faith grows with it. Hyping it will not help. As a viable option among many, the families that choose homeschooling still need to have their life and methods rooted in the same Gospel as the Reformation.For it is only in the Person and Work of Christ that homeschooling—or any schooling—can be part of a reformation of life and a bright future for mankind.
[More observations on homeschooling]
Sadly, this optimism is driven by an uninformed idealism. The 2 million number is suspect because unprovable: most of the number includes an assumption about how many homeschoolers have not been counted. The National Center for Educational Statistics has the latest number at about 1.1 million—with 18% of that number including students that attend 25 hours or less of class time outside the home. So, practically the 1.1 million number should ignore 18 percent. And if the 2 million number is accurate, it should shrink proportionally as well: 902 hundred-thousand and 1.640 million respectively.
When the retention factor is analyzed, the future of homeschooling becomes more questionable. The latest 2007 Peabody Journal of Education summary paints a more accurate picture: “much homeschooling occurs in intervals of 1 to 4 years. This implies that the total number of 18-year-olds in 2006 who have been homeschooled at least intermittently is around 375,000, or about 10%.” Only a 63% retention rate exists into the second year of homeschooling. And after year six 48% are still homeschooling (only 15% for secular families). Similar numbers are acknowledged by some homeschooling leaders.
There’s more. Many assume that most homeschoolers are college-educated, middle-class, white conservatives. However, a Barna poll suggests that is not so. 49% of these families fit this description. And just over half (51%) are not classified as “born again”. Only 15% are (loosely) Evangelical. Half of the homeschoolers polled consider themselves somewhere between conservative and liberal.
More importantly, the Barna Group numbers display a level of poor spirituality I had only guessed at from my own anecdotal experience: most homeschoolers deny that Satan exists and half believe that salvation is obtained through good works.
The future of homeschooling is decidedly not looking bright. Even if the numbers are actually growing, who cares? If the numbers grow but the spiritual life does not grow what have homeschoolers achieved? What have the leaders wrought? If vast numbers are ignorant of the depths of their sins and the power of the Gospel of sovereign grace, hypocrisy and false assurance will rise. Then the future may be pleasant people, clean neighborhoods, and whiten sepulchers full of dead men’s bones.
The future of homeschooling is bright if and only if the faith grows with it. Hyping it will not help. As a viable option among many, the families that choose homeschooling still need to have their life and methods rooted in the same Gospel as the Reformation.For it is only in the Person and Work of Christ that homeschooling—or any schooling—can be part of a reformation of life and a bright future for mankind.
[More observations on homeschooling]
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.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Why Homeschoolers Need the Gospel
Why should it be presumed that orthodox doctrine is believed among homeschoolers?
If, say, discipline and nurture are emphasized in a context of presumed orthodoxy but the presumption is wrong, then what?
If a family nurtures their children into theological error then nurture has only hurt the children. If a family disciplines their children into the name-it-and-claim-it mentality then discipline has harmed the children. If a family prays together but prays to a 'god' who changes his mind then such prayer has damaged the children.
To assert the necessity of discipleship without taking into account the sorry spiritual state of most Evangelicals is as helpful as a soap commercial for cleaning a house full of spiritual babes--what baby can clean his or her own mess?
Are all Evangelicals, even homeschoolers, spiritually babes or even spiritually dead? I don't know that. But I can discern the times and the seasons through my own years of experience--and the experience of those older than me--and listen to the statistical evidence gathered over the last twenty years. And more importantly I can evaluate the creeds of these families and churches--if their creed believes that Christ sinned while on earth can I not safely assume that there is a spiritual crisis of vast proportions? That perhaps these people are fooling themselves? That radical surgery is required?
My experience as a Dispensational, Arminian, Charismatic of a decade of my life speaks volumes. My church was a mega-church before mega-churches became well-known. We had 2,000 members--well, attendees, church membership was not required.
I was confused; always in fear of losing my salvation. Sure I was saved by grace--but what kind of grace is it that cannot hold onto me in spite of my sins? What was grace? I had no doctrinal footing to stand upon. Did not creeds divide and love unite? Yet I was so full of 'love' that I sank in an ocean of chaotic emotions because I was not taught the teaching (doctrine) of swimming. Even though I was a good student, at church and school, and had an open relationship with my parents, I struggled with sin.
Such doctrinal confusion lead to my lack of assurance and spiritual stagnancy. The practical consequence of such spiritual ignorance was that I was trying to save myself. What if I sinned and died before I repented? Did I believe God enough? Was I obedient enough? The agony was unbearable until God's goodness brought me to sound doctrine which changed my faith from introspection to extrospection--seeing Christ and Him crucified.
Statistically, Barna has been polling American Christians since the mid-80s. Their frustration with the chronic ignorance of such Christians lead to the publication of UnChristian. It was there that I discovered that "out of ninety-five million Americans [aged 18-41]...about sixty million say they have already made a commitment to Jesus that is still important" but only three million (3%) of the total have a nominal Christian worldview (nominal because the very definition used by Barna is non-trinitarian!). Of those aged 42+ only 9% have a nominal Christian worldview. Whose to say that homeschoolers are immune to such doctrinal and therefore practical ignorance?
Barna certainly does not let homeschoolers off the hook. Their 2001 random survey (the best type) suggests that just over half (51%) are not classified as “born again”. Only 15% are (loosely) Evangelical. Half of the homeschoolers polled consider themselves somewhere between conservative and liberal. More importantly, the Barna Group numbers display a level of poor spirituality I had only guessed at from my own anecdotal experience: most homeschoolers deny that Satan exists and half believe that salvation is obtained through good works.
Doctrinally, the situation is worse. Experience and statistics can only go so far but what a person believes with their mouth will reveal their heart (Rom. 10.10). It is certainly true that actions do not always follow beliefs, but they should. And God is not pleased if someone confesses that God is all-sovereign yet frets about the future. At the same time it is wrong to confess that God is impotent among the sons of men and live accordingly.
Professor Horton's excellent book, Christless Christianity, sums the problem of conservative Evangelicalism--whatever their educational proclivities--as moralistic, therapeutic Deism: God created the world; God wants us to be good; God wants us to be happy; God will solve your problems on demand; good people go to heaven (p.41).
Deism is not Christianity. It is the belief that there is a distant Being who created everything and left it alone. Redemption is being good. And the chief end of man is to be happy.
Yet more specific doctrinal errors are frequent as well: God the Father did not choose His own people (that's our job); God the Son did not obey the law for us (that's our job); God the Spirit cannot raise the spiritual dead (that's our job); there is no original sin; infants are innocent; and man's depravity is a lack of information not will.
I know these dangerous errors exist because I have heard them with my own ears. I have examined many churches and their confessions. And I conclude that homeschoolers, as much as any Christian, still need the Gospel.
If, say, discipline and nurture are emphasized in a context of presumed orthodoxy but the presumption is wrong, then what?
If a family nurtures their children into theological error then nurture has only hurt the children. If a family disciplines their children into the name-it-and-claim-it mentality then discipline has harmed the children. If a family prays together but prays to a 'god' who changes his mind then such prayer has damaged the children.
To assert the necessity of discipleship without taking into account the sorry spiritual state of most Evangelicals is as helpful as a soap commercial for cleaning a house full of spiritual babes--what baby can clean his or her own mess?
Are all Evangelicals, even homeschoolers, spiritually babes or even spiritually dead? I don't know that. But I can discern the times and the seasons through my own years of experience--and the experience of those older than me--and listen to the statistical evidence gathered over the last twenty years. And more importantly I can evaluate the creeds of these families and churches--if their creed believes that Christ sinned while on earth can I not safely assume that there is a spiritual crisis of vast proportions? That perhaps these people are fooling themselves? That radical surgery is required?
My experience as a Dispensational, Arminian, Charismatic of a decade of my life speaks volumes. My church was a mega-church before mega-churches became well-known. We had 2,000 members--well, attendees, church membership was not required.
I was confused; always in fear of losing my salvation. Sure I was saved by grace--but what kind of grace is it that cannot hold onto me in spite of my sins? What was grace? I had no doctrinal footing to stand upon. Did not creeds divide and love unite? Yet I was so full of 'love' that I sank in an ocean of chaotic emotions because I was not taught the teaching (doctrine) of swimming. Even though I was a good student, at church and school, and had an open relationship with my parents, I struggled with sin.
Such doctrinal confusion lead to my lack of assurance and spiritual stagnancy. The practical consequence of such spiritual ignorance was that I was trying to save myself. What if I sinned and died before I repented? Did I believe God enough? Was I obedient enough? The agony was unbearable until God's goodness brought me to sound doctrine which changed my faith from introspection to extrospection--seeing Christ and Him crucified.
Statistically, Barna has been polling American Christians since the mid-80s. Their frustration with the chronic ignorance of such Christians lead to the publication of UnChristian. It was there that I discovered that "out of ninety-five million Americans [aged 18-41]...about sixty million say they have already made a commitment to Jesus that is still important" but only three million (3%) of the total have a nominal Christian worldview (nominal because the very definition used by Barna is non-trinitarian!). Of those aged 42+ only 9% have a nominal Christian worldview. Whose to say that homeschoolers are immune to such doctrinal and therefore practical ignorance?
Barna certainly does not let homeschoolers off the hook. Their 2001 random survey (the best type) suggests that just over half (51%) are not classified as “born again”. Only 15% are (loosely) Evangelical. Half of the homeschoolers polled consider themselves somewhere between conservative and liberal. More importantly, the Barna Group numbers display a level of poor spirituality I had only guessed at from my own anecdotal experience: most homeschoolers deny that Satan exists and half believe that salvation is obtained through good works.
Doctrinally, the situation is worse. Experience and statistics can only go so far but what a person believes with their mouth will reveal their heart (Rom. 10.10). It is certainly true that actions do not always follow beliefs, but they should. And God is not pleased if someone confesses that God is all-sovereign yet frets about the future. At the same time it is wrong to confess that God is impotent among the sons of men and live accordingly.
Professor Horton's excellent book, Christless Christianity, sums the problem of conservative Evangelicalism--whatever their educational proclivities--as moralistic, therapeutic Deism: God created the world; God wants us to be good; God wants us to be happy; God will solve your problems on demand; good people go to heaven (p.41).
Deism is not Christianity. It is the belief that there is a distant Being who created everything and left it alone. Redemption is being good. And the chief end of man is to be happy.
Yet more specific doctrinal errors are frequent as well: God the Father did not choose His own people (that's our job); God the Son did not obey the law for us (that's our job); God the Spirit cannot raise the spiritual dead (that's our job); there is no original sin; infants are innocent; and man's depravity is a lack of information not will.
I know these dangerous errors exist because I have heard them with my own ears. I have examined many churches and their confessions. And I conclude that homeschoolers, as much as any Christian, still need the Gospel.
Friday, July 10, 2009
In Defense of Homeschooling
In my naivete, I thought only the secular school sponsors ranted against home education.
But I was wrong.
I recently discovered that Christians could be against homeschooling. For instance, a professor of theology strongly discouraged homeschooling as a viable option. He may have allowed it under special circumstances but such was not articulated.
I have also heard second-hand from reliable ministers that homeschooling has been discouraged by other ministers. Yet as near as I can tell this is a minority position.
Nevertheless, I think homeschooling should be defended from such detractors.
First of all, parents have Christian liberty in this realm. Sending their children to a good Christian school, using a good tutor, homeschooling or combining all of the above are well within the acceptable parameters of the Bible. What the Bible does not forbid is allowable if used correctly. The Bible does not forbid homeschooling. Therefore, homeschooling is a viable option.
Second, there is no universally acceptable manner to educate children. Naturally, what decision is made in this regard is heavily dependent upon the family's financial, academic, ecclesiastical and similar circumstances. As much as such circumstances change so there are that many combinations of acceptable educational methods. And mature parents are usually the best judges of their own circumstances.
Third, the Bible assigns the parents as the primary guardians, giving them the responsibility to determine the best nurturing method for the child (Eph. 6:4). Although the Word of God does not specify all the areas and ways to nurture a child, the light of nature and the clear assumption of the Word puts questions of diet, exercise, entertainment, etc. as areas in which parents are granted authority. Certainly, this includes education.
Fourth, religious instruction is assigned to parents (Deut. 6:7; Proverbs). Religious instruction has historically been propagated in the family through daily family worship, catechetical instruction and daily impromptu discussions. Religious instruction being a greater subject of education than math, for instance, it follows from the greater to the lesser that parents have the option to instruct in less sublime topics, if able.
Fifth, history demonstrates the acceptability of homeschooling. Some Puritans practiced it. And some church leaders were partly or mostly homechooled. Historically, homeschooling has never been condemned by the church nor denounced by her leaders.
None of this should be taken to excuse bad homeschoooling. As with any enculturation tool, homeschooling can be abused. This defense of properly applied homeschooling does not defend those families that wish to isolate themselves from the local church. The church of God has her own duty to instruct her members, young or old. Nor is this a defense of those who wish to use homeschooling as a new relational center, replacing a common set of doctrine and practice with a new set of emphases.
Rather, good homeschooling does not consider itself in isolation from the Christian community. It is concerned with doctrinal and practical purity. Furthermore, many families in my experience do not exclusively homeschool but mix it with other approaches.
So, the next time someone wishes to dismiss homeschooling as some suspicious aberration, point out these truths to them. And above all, do not become overly agitated--there are bigger concerns we ought to be worried about.
But I was wrong.
I recently discovered that Christians could be against homeschooling. For instance, a professor of theology strongly discouraged homeschooling as a viable option. He may have allowed it under special circumstances but such was not articulated.
I have also heard second-hand from reliable ministers that homeschooling has been discouraged by other ministers. Yet as near as I can tell this is a minority position.
Nevertheless, I think homeschooling should be defended from such detractors.
First of all, parents have Christian liberty in this realm. Sending their children to a good Christian school, using a good tutor, homeschooling or combining all of the above are well within the acceptable parameters of the Bible. What the Bible does not forbid is allowable if used correctly. The Bible does not forbid homeschooling. Therefore, homeschooling is a viable option.
Second, there is no universally acceptable manner to educate children. Naturally, what decision is made in this regard is heavily dependent upon the family's financial, academic, ecclesiastical and similar circumstances. As much as such circumstances change so there are that many combinations of acceptable educational methods. And mature parents are usually the best judges of their own circumstances.
Third, the Bible assigns the parents as the primary guardians, giving them the responsibility to determine the best nurturing method for the child (Eph. 6:4). Although the Word of God does not specify all the areas and ways to nurture a child, the light of nature and the clear assumption of the Word puts questions of diet, exercise, entertainment, etc. as areas in which parents are granted authority. Certainly, this includes education.
Fourth, religious instruction is assigned to parents (Deut. 6:7; Proverbs). Religious instruction has historically been propagated in the family through daily family worship, catechetical instruction and daily impromptu discussions. Religious instruction being a greater subject of education than math, for instance, it follows from the greater to the lesser that parents have the option to instruct in less sublime topics, if able.
Fifth, history demonstrates the acceptability of homeschooling. Some Puritans practiced it. And some church leaders were partly or mostly homechooled. Historically, homeschooling has never been condemned by the church nor denounced by her leaders.
None of this should be taken to excuse bad homeschoooling. As with any enculturation tool, homeschooling can be abused. This defense of properly applied homeschooling does not defend those families that wish to isolate themselves from the local church. The church of God has her own duty to instruct her members, young or old. Nor is this a defense of those who wish to use homeschooling as a new relational center, replacing a common set of doctrine and practice with a new set of emphases.
Rather, good homeschooling does not consider itself in isolation from the Christian community. It is concerned with doctrinal and practical purity. Furthermore, many families in my experience do not exclusively homeschool but mix it with other approaches.
So, the next time someone wishes to dismiss homeschooling as some suspicious aberration, point out these truths to them. And above all, do not become overly agitated--there are bigger concerns we ought to be worried about.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Home Education Defined--Isaac Taylor, 1838
Most Christians are under the deep impression that homeschooling was universally accepted until the late 1800s. Although such a broad-sweeping affirmation cannot be conclusively proven (nor unproven), it can be examined one era at a time. One such approach would be to examine the books of the early and mid 1800s which stressed "fireside education"--that renewed emphasis on family life.
One such book was written by Isaac Taylor, "Home Education".
The following is from the opening chapter of the 1838 edition:
"I am not about to compare public and private education as if intending to disparage the one, that the other, which is my chosen subject, may appear to the greater advantage...The reader would have good reason to distrust the judgment of a writer who, for the purpose of enhancing the importance of the particular task he has undertaken, should speak of Home Education as if it were abstractedly and universally preferable to the opposite system; or should affirm that it might be adopted by the generality of families: the contrary of both suppositions I fully admit."
"Having thus precluded a probable misunderstanding of my intention, I may with equal explicitness, profess the belief, first, that Home Education, if the principles and methods proper to it are well understood, is both practicable and preferable in more instances than has often been supposed..."
Such up-front nuance is a breath of fresh air in comparison to some contemporary rhetoric. The author continues with the all important necessity of definition:
"I ought to premise that the phrase, Home Education, is not, in my view, to be strictly confined to the training of the children of a single family, under the paternal roof; but may embrace any instances in which the number assembled for instruction is not greater than may well consist with the enjoyments, the intimacy, the usages, and the harmony that ought to attach to a family."
Although, he is more in favor of small group learning--a theme most Christians are in favor of today--he never assumes or asserts an all or nothing position. He does not endorse homeschooling as conceived in some modern circles. In fact, he does not endorse homeschooling as many people would recognize it today--who would name a school with a small class 'homeschooling'?
No, his concern is not about the method per se but about the atmosphere--a familial milieu of love. Something many Christians can agree upon.
One such book was written by Isaac Taylor, "Home Education".
The following is from the opening chapter of the 1838 edition:
"I am not about to compare public and private education as if intending to disparage the one, that the other, which is my chosen subject, may appear to the greater advantage...The reader would have good reason to distrust the judgment of a writer who, for the purpose of enhancing the importance of the particular task he has undertaken, should speak of Home Education as if it were abstractedly and universally preferable to the opposite system; or should affirm that it might be adopted by the generality of families: the contrary of both suppositions I fully admit."
"Having thus precluded a probable misunderstanding of my intention, I may with equal explicitness, profess the belief, first, that Home Education, if the principles and methods proper to it are well understood, is both practicable and preferable in more instances than has often been supposed..."
Such up-front nuance is a breath of fresh air in comparison to some contemporary rhetoric. The author continues with the all important necessity of definition:
"I ought to premise that the phrase, Home Education, is not, in my view, to be strictly confined to the training of the children of a single family, under the paternal roof; but may embrace any instances in which the number assembled for instruction is not greater than may well consist with the enjoyments, the intimacy, the usages, and the harmony that ought to attach to a family."
Although, he is more in favor of small group learning--a theme most Christians are in favor of today--he never assumes or asserts an all or nothing position. He does not endorse homeschooling as conceived in some modern circles. In fact, he does not endorse homeschooling as many people would recognize it today--who would name a school with a small class 'homeschooling'?
No, his concern is not about the method per se but about the atmosphere--a familial milieu of love. Something many Christians can agree upon.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Swift Kick in the Pants
One of the perennial temptations for parents is to farm out their responsibilities for their children. I did not say delegate; I do not mean letting others help, direct or instruct their children. A parent can do that and still retain their responsibility in the matter.
No. I mean actually abdicating their responsibility. For example, when junior is failing at school, the parents blame the tutor. Or junior. When, in this instance, one key problem could be the total lack of involvement from mom and dad. They are so busy through-out the week--tennis, bible study, over-time, vet, house-hold chores--neither parent bothered to organize their time to sit down and find out how junior was progressing intellectually and spiritually: was junior disciplined with his own time? or did his mind wander? was his attitude about math good, bad or indifferent? Perhaps he has unrepentant sin that is distracting him?
The parents probably thought they were delegating their schooling when it actually became an excuse to put their kids out of the way of their own pleasures. Or the parents were too myopic. Or even lazy.
In such cases, the parents need a swift kick in the pants.
More families are realizing the importance of their duty before God: to train their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They are getting their collective pants kicked by faithful teaching and preaching of the Word. More churches are realizing that they were demanding too much time and energy from families. Something many Reformed churches have realized for centuries.
But God not only uses church officers to call his families to faithfulness, at times he also uses friends, and Christian teachers and even homeschooling.
Homeschooling has been a swift kick in the pants for many a family. And that is a good thing. Forced to be intimately involved with junior's education--his ABCs & 123s--many quickly learn that education is more than mere intellectualism.
Junior has a lazy attitude. He disdains learning. He cheats on tests. Mom and Dad are beginning to realize that when they let junior keep his room a mess, he keeps his education a mess too. The importance of character comes to the fore. The character of not only junior but the attitudes and expectations of the parents. Disdaining Sunday worship. Watching TV all day. And chronically skipping family worship. Such parental slips add up.
And they influence junior.
Homeschooling for a number of families creates physical closeness that may help facilitate a familial closeness. Mixing homeschooling with strong parental willingness, wisdom and Spirit-wrought effort is a powerful combination. But it is only lasting if the Gospel cements the family together. Knowledge of that Gospel which wrought the Reformation is a must.
God uses many methods to point his children toward their responsibilities. Some subtle and kind and others more direct and blunt. We prefer the former but usually need the latter. And homeschooling can provide that swift kick in the pants.
No. I mean actually abdicating their responsibility. For example, when junior is failing at school, the parents blame the tutor. Or junior. When, in this instance, one key problem could be the total lack of involvement from mom and dad. They are so busy through-out the week--tennis, bible study, over-time, vet, house-hold chores--neither parent bothered to organize their time to sit down and find out how junior was progressing intellectually and spiritually: was junior disciplined with his own time? or did his mind wander? was his attitude about math good, bad or indifferent? Perhaps he has unrepentant sin that is distracting him?
The parents probably thought they were delegating their schooling when it actually became an excuse to put their kids out of the way of their own pleasures. Or the parents were too myopic. Or even lazy.
In such cases, the parents need a swift kick in the pants.
More families are realizing the importance of their duty before God: to train their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They are getting their collective pants kicked by faithful teaching and preaching of the Word. More churches are realizing that they were demanding too much time and energy from families. Something many Reformed churches have realized for centuries.
But God not only uses church officers to call his families to faithfulness, at times he also uses friends, and Christian teachers and even homeschooling.
Homeschooling has been a swift kick in the pants for many a family. And that is a good thing. Forced to be intimately involved with junior's education--his ABCs & 123s--many quickly learn that education is more than mere intellectualism.
Junior has a lazy attitude. He disdains learning. He cheats on tests. Mom and Dad are beginning to realize that when they let junior keep his room a mess, he keeps his education a mess too. The importance of character comes to the fore. The character of not only junior but the attitudes and expectations of the parents. Disdaining Sunday worship. Watching TV all day. And chronically skipping family worship. Such parental slips add up.
And they influence junior.
Homeschooling for a number of families creates physical closeness that may help facilitate a familial closeness. Mixing homeschooling with strong parental willingness, wisdom and Spirit-wrought effort is a powerful combination. But it is only lasting if the Gospel cements the family together. Knowledge of that Gospel which wrought the Reformation is a must.
God uses many methods to point his children toward their responsibilities. Some subtle and kind and others more direct and blunt. We prefer the former but usually need the latter. And homeschooling can provide that swift kick in the pants.
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]
Monday, May 18, 2009
Malachi 4:6--Cotton Mather
Another historical figure giving a different sense to Malachi 4:6 than the one propagated among some homeschooling leaders, is the great American Cotton Mather. In the introduction to the third book of his Magnalia Christi Americana (p.234), he summarizes his exegesis of that passage:
“It was mentioned as the business and blessedness of John Baptist, 'To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.' After a deal of more ado about the sense of the passage thus translated, I contented my self with another translation, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers WITH the children;' because I find the preposition ‘epi [greek], as well as the prefix ‘bet’ [Hebrew], in Mal. iv.6, whence the passage is taken, to be rendered ‘with,’ rather than ‘to.’ The sense therefore I took to be, that John should convert both old and young. But further thought hath offered unto me a further gloss upon it: ‘to turn the hearts of the father to the children,' is to turn the children by putting the hearts of the fathers into them; to give them such hearts as were in Abraham, and others of their famous and faithful fathers.
“Reader, the book now in thy hands is to manage the design of a John Baptist, and convey the hearts of the fathers unto the children.”
“It was mentioned as the business and blessedness of John Baptist, 'To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.' After a deal of more ado about the sense of the passage thus translated, I contented my self with another translation, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers WITH the children;' because I find the preposition ‘epi [greek], as well as the prefix ‘bet’ [Hebrew], in Mal. iv.6, whence the passage is taken, to be rendered ‘with,’ rather than ‘to.’ The sense therefore I took to be, that John should convert both old and young. But further thought hath offered unto me a further gloss upon it: ‘to turn the hearts of the father to the children,' is to turn the children by putting the hearts of the fathers into them; to give them such hearts as were in Abraham, and others of their famous and faithful fathers.
“Reader, the book now in thy hands is to manage the design of a John Baptist, and convey the hearts of the fathers unto the children.”
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Very Short History of Christian Education, 5/5
“Lord, for schools everywhere among us! That our schools may flourish!”
John Eliot, New England Indian missionary
John Eliot, New England Indian missionary
Early America:
Colonial Americans were British. As such, they continued the British ideal of education: both homeschooling and local schooling were liberally practiced. Group readings and individual catechizing helped literacy. As during the Reformation, public and family worship was encouraged, yet catechizing through the family, church and school was the mainstay of religious instruction. At times, such catechizing was furthered through assemblies of the children, not unlike Sunday school.
The Massachusetts' Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647 required the creation of elementary and grammar schools. Other New England colonies quickly followed Massachusetts’ lead. Eleven of the twelve Dutch colonies in the New York (New Amsterdam) area had schools before 1664, and still the Dutch settlers complained that there were not enough schools. Although in the southern colonies tutors and homeschooling were more prevalent, private and public schools were initiated in several villages and towns as early as 1621 in Virginia.
The typical New England child would begin instruction before age six, attending a local Dame school wherein an older woman (usually widowed) would teach the rudiments. After mastering reading through the hornbook or the New England Primer, he would advance to a writing school. If he were proficient he would attend a grammar school, learning the classics.
From Adams to Washington, the leaders of America went to school. Washington apparently attended the least amount while many others attended school for most of their education and/or learned from tutors at home. Southern schools were usually found on plantations--private tutors-turned-public-teachers for the neighboring families.
Leaders, such as John Eliot and Cotton Mather, promoted parental nurture as well as Christian day schools. Likewise, Noah Webster, Adams and Jefferson encouraged the creation of schools. Some election-day sermons exhorted the listeners to support local schooling. The Presbyterian Synod of New York and Philadelphia publicly called for more schools.
Many pre-1800 state constitutions included provisions for public education: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Georgia. New York state provided for schools, with over half of her children in school by 1800. According to professor Samuel Miller, the proliferation of primary schools was great in the late 1700s. In 1812, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours, after touring America at Jefferson's behest, observed that in contrast to Europe, Americans "have a great number of primary schools…So then, nearly all young Americans learn to read, write and cipher" (trans. Dr. Coppes). De Tocqueville in 1830 made similar observations, lauding the reading culture of the families and communities. By 1840 probably 59% of American children attended schools.
The lesson to be found here is that our spiritual and political fathers and mothers exercised their God-given freedom to educate their children as they saw fit. Such education under-girded the founding of this nation without much spiritual or political harm. The emphasis was on religious and vocational training, not upon how such training was accomplished. Whether at home or abroad, the cultures in Europe and America were homogeneous enough that a three-fold instructional approach--family, church and school--was exercised without much concern. No family was an island.
Today's call back to the educational good-ol' days is well and fine if the call is rooted in the factual history of America. Anything less is at best uninformed zeal and at worst a sectarian commercialism of history.
Home
Summary of References & Suggested Readings:
American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607-1783, Cremin
History of Education, Cubberley
The Puritan Family, Morgan
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Radical Homeschooling: Defined
'Radical' means "to go to the root."
And there is a movement within the movement of homeschooling that wants to get 'radical'.
In American society this word normally connotes a negative idea of rank anger and irrationality. But in this series of articles about an up and coming sub-movement within homeschooling, it will not be used in such a derisive sense. I struggled with finding a suitable adjective or even a noun, but I think 'radical' works best because when rationally examined, the word dovetails with the movements goals: to return to the supposed root of Western Civilization educational methodologies--homeschooling.
The other usage of 'radical' involves a relatively extreme commitment to a particular cause--which describes the leaders of this movement because they believe homeschooling (and other derivatives) is either demanded by the Bible or the best option that fulfills the Bible (not all who think homeschooling is the best option are radical as I define it in this post).
The word can also denote advocating drastic change. The leaders of this movement are not interested (as displayed by their actions) in presenting or propagating their views piece-meal. They want change and they want it now.
Why this much ink for a single word? Because being labeled is no fun and some people will react negatively to the word. But labels are necessary for those who wish to be disassociated from differing views. This tripartite definition--the historical, moral and urgent elements--may not set well with some, but it is my humble attempt to understand this unique approach to Christian education. I will try to only label this theoretical position and not the people.
Now to the point: Radical homeschooling is the doctrine that homeschooling is the sine qua non of biblically based parenting.
In other words, homeschooling is commanded by the Bible:
"Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." (p.133, When You Rise Up)
" 'Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always'" (Deut. 11:1). This is why we should homeschool. God commands parents to teach their own children God's law, and we must be obedient." (p.9, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview)
In fact the about page of Vision Forum asserts: the "modern classroom…is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education."
One of the more influential homeschooling leaders, the founder of the NCFIC (family-integrated church group), clearly stated his position a few years back:
"Our reasons for home educating are not preferential, but principled, being derived from God’s Word.... Wrong educational methodology can lead a child to Hell…" Doug's blog, Oct. 8, 2004
Is this his personal opinion? (As though that could be divorced from his public efforts.) Fortunately, this sentiment has been stated and rather boldly at the parent website, Vision Forum's about page:
"Most men are gripped by fear. They fear the loss of job security. They fear the unknown. They fear the opinions of others. This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture. This fear prevents other fathers from making lifestyle changes which will allow them to spend more time walking beside their children, as God commands...Methods are not neutral. The rise of the home education movement is not merely a response to the failure of government education; it is an affirmation of a distinctively Biblical approach to both the methods and the objectives of Christian education."
The author boldly declares homeschooling as the "most consistent" approach to the Bible. Naturally, Christians would not settle for the second most consistent approach of anything in the Bible. Who would not want to spend "more time walking beside" their children--as God commands? Vision Forum is about homeschooling. It is about more, but it is in the business of propagating homeschooling as the Biblical approach. This statement is further amplified in a radio interview:
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church...our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! And vice-versa; they play off of each other. Because when you understand the importance of discipleship you move in that direction…” [1]
Clearly the speaker's prayer (and goal?) is to make every church in the world--not Reformed, not Dispensational, not Baptistic--but a family-integrated, homeschooling church. Why? Because homeschoolers "almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children." Homeschooling is a revival.
A clear and unequivocal statement, such as, "God commands homeschooling," is not needed because it is the warp and woof of this movement.
This unique approach to education presumably allows for exceptions to homeschooling (presumably because I have not actually found any such evidence), yet a biblical command is a biblical command, exceptions notwithstanding. If this is a message you wish to follow, dear reader, then by all means join the organization and help them make their point loud and clear. But I hope in this continuing series to demonstrate that, in spite of some of the laudable goals of RH, its view of the history of Christian education is mistaken and its understanding of key elements of Christian nurture is misguided.
Soli Deo Gloria
[1] Phillips quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006.
And there is a movement within the movement of homeschooling that wants to get 'radical'.
In American society this word normally connotes a negative idea of rank anger and irrationality. But in this series of articles about an up and coming sub-movement within homeschooling, it will not be used in such a derisive sense. I struggled with finding a suitable adjective or even a noun, but I think 'radical' works best because when rationally examined, the word dovetails with the movements goals: to return to the supposed root of Western Civilization educational methodologies--homeschooling.
The other usage of 'radical' involves a relatively extreme commitment to a particular cause--which describes the leaders of this movement because they believe homeschooling (and other derivatives) is either demanded by the Bible or the best option that fulfills the Bible (not all who think homeschooling is the best option are radical as I define it in this post).
The word can also denote advocating drastic change. The leaders of this movement are not interested (as displayed by their actions) in presenting or propagating their views piece-meal. They want change and they want it now.
Why this much ink for a single word? Because being labeled is no fun and some people will react negatively to the word. But labels are necessary for those who wish to be disassociated from differing views. This tripartite definition--the historical, moral and urgent elements--may not set well with some, but it is my humble attempt to understand this unique approach to Christian education. I will try to only label this theoretical position and not the people.
Now to the point: Radical homeschooling is the doctrine that homeschooling is the sine qua non of biblically based parenting.
In other words, homeschooling is commanded by the Bible:
"Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." (p.133, When You Rise Up)
" 'Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always'" (Deut. 11:1). This is why we should homeschool. God commands parents to teach their own children God's law, and we must be obedient." (p.9, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview)
In fact the about page of Vision Forum asserts: the "modern classroom…is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education."
One of the more influential homeschooling leaders, the founder of the NCFIC (family-integrated church group), clearly stated his position a few years back:
"Our reasons for home educating are not preferential, but principled, being derived from God’s Word.... Wrong educational methodology can lead a child to Hell…" Doug's blog, Oct. 8, 2004
Is this his personal opinion? (As though that could be divorced from his public efforts.) Fortunately, this sentiment has been stated and rather boldly at the parent website, Vision Forum's about page:
"Most men are gripped by fear. They fear the loss of job security. They fear the unknown. They fear the opinions of others. This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture. This fear prevents other fathers from making lifestyle changes which will allow them to spend more time walking beside their children, as God commands...Methods are not neutral. The rise of the home education movement is not merely a response to the failure of government education; it is an affirmation of a distinctively Biblical approach to both the methods and the objectives of Christian education."
The author boldly declares homeschooling as the "most consistent" approach to the Bible. Naturally, Christians would not settle for the second most consistent approach of anything in the Bible. Who would not want to spend "more time walking beside" their children--as God commands? Vision Forum is about homeschooling. It is about more, but it is in the business of propagating homeschooling as the Biblical approach. This statement is further amplified in a radio interview:
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church...our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! And vice-versa; they play off of each other. Because when you understand the importance of discipleship you move in that direction…” [1]
Clearly the speaker's prayer (and goal?) is to make every church in the world--not Reformed, not Dispensational, not Baptistic--but a family-integrated, homeschooling church. Why? Because homeschoolers "almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children." Homeschooling is a revival.
A clear and unequivocal statement, such as, "God commands homeschooling," is not needed because it is the warp and woof of this movement.
This unique approach to education presumably allows for exceptions to homeschooling (presumably because I have not actually found any such evidence), yet a biblical command is a biblical command, exceptions notwithstanding. If this is a message you wish to follow, dear reader, then by all means join the organization and help them make their point loud and clear. But I hope in this continuing series to demonstrate that, in spite of some of the laudable goals of RH, its view of the history of Christian education is mistaken and its understanding of key elements of Christian nurture is misguided.
Soli Deo Gloria
[1] Phillips quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)