Psalm Study: Psalm 111

Dear Reader,

For an introduction to how and why we do Psalm Study, see this post.

Do you remember being in elementary school and writing the letters of the word “MOTHER” down the side of your page and then thinking of words to describe your own that begin with each of them (“M is for makes me cookies . . . “)? If so, you have written an acrostic poem.

The Book of Psalms also contains acrostic poems. They don’t spell anything out anything but they do follow the Hebrew alphabet, one line for each letter.

Sidebar: The Hebrew alphabet contains 22 letters. Actually, I should say 22 consonants. Hebrew was originally written with just consonants. Vowels were added later as people began to forget the langauge (Aramaic, a close cousin, became the spoken langauge). In order not to change the base text of the Old Testament, the vowels were added as little points and dashes above and below the letters (“jots and tittles”). Hebrew words are based on a tri-literal (three letter) root system which makes it a little easier to use just the consonants, but we could read without vowels too. Give it a try: W wlkd th dg ystrdy. Not too hard, right?

Today we are going to look at one of these acrostic poems, Psalm 111. When you made the MOTHER poem in second grade, it probably wasn’t the finest poetry. The psalms that are acrostics, because they have to adhere to the pattern, also will not display all the features we expect of Hebrew poetry. We are less likely to see parallelism and the poem itself often sounds choppier.

Not surprisingly, word choice is very important in acrostics. Though the lines may seem unconnected at first, there are often common words which reappear through the course of the poem. And, of course, each line must start with a certain letter. Sometimes the word that begins the line is a relatively insignificant one (“in”, “the”), but often the psalmist does what you probably did — he thinks about the subject of his poem (God for him, mother for you) and thinks of what word beginning with the appropriate letter best fits that subject.

Psalm 111

  1. Praise the LORD.

  2. I will laud the LORD with all [my] heart.

  3. In the assembly of [the] upright and [the] congregation,

  4. Great — the deeds of the LORD,

  5. Sought by all who delight in them.

  6. Glorious and splendid — his work.

  7. And his righteousness stands for ages.

  8. [A] remembrance he made for his wondrous things.

  9. Gracious and compassionate — the LORD.

  10. Food he gave to his fearers.

  11. He will remember forever his covenant.

  12. [The] strength of his deeds he told to his people.

  13. To give to them the inheritance of nations.

  14. [The] deeds of his hands — truth and justice.

  15. Faithful — all his precepts,

  16. Established for all ages and forever,

  17. Done in truth and uprightness.

  18. Ransom, he sent to his people.

  19. He commanded forever — his covenant

  20. Holy and feared — his name.

  21. [The] beginning of wisdom — the fear of the LORD.

  22. Recompense of good to all who do them.

  23. His praise stands for ages.

Because this Psalm is a little different, a few translation notes are in order before we begin:

  • First words are important here. Due to the differences between langauges, the word that is first in Hebrew doesn’t always end up first in our English translation. This often happens because Hebrew uses one word where we need a few. For example, “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) is one word in Hebrew. In English the boring words like “in” and “the” have to come first. So you will know which word comes first in the Hebrew I put the first word of each line in bold. If mutliple words are in bold, it is because they are one word in Hebrew.
  • Sometimes English requires words that Hebrew doesn’t. I usually put these words in brackets [ ] to show that they are added. You will see that there are a few words in brackets in my translation. Often what comes in brackets is a present tense “to be” verb (is, are) as Hebrew does not require these when English does. There are a number of lines in this poem where I could have added such a verb, and normally would have done so, but chose not to for this psalm. Consider, for exmaple, line 4. In Hebrew it says “Great the deeds of the LORD.” While we would normally add an “are,” I did not here. Remember that in the style of the acrostic it is as if the psalmist is thinking of a word that reminds him of God. In line 4 the word is “great.” After he gives this word, he then explains a little of why it reminds him of God. In this case, it is the deeds of the LORD that are great. It is as if in writing about your mother you the first H word you thought of for her was “hugs” and so you wrote “Hugs — she gives them to me.” That is how this poem sounds to me in Hebrew so it is how I rendered it in English.
  • The first line is not part of the acrostic pattern. Line 2 (as I have it written) begins with aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. As a reminder, line numbers are not verse numbers but are for discussion purposes.

Your job before you read on is to print out the psalm and to get out your colored pencils. As you read through Psalm 111, notice which words come first in each line. You might even just want to list them all on your paper. Also look for other repeated words and words which are synonymous and express similar ideas.

Hopefully, now you have done your homework. Let’s start by looking at those first words. Focusing on the main words (not the ‘and’s and ‘the’s which are prefixes in Hebrew), here is my list: praise, laud, assembly, great, sought, glorious, righteousness, remembrance, gracious, food, remember, strength, give, deeds, faithful, established, done, ransom, commanded, holy, beginning, recompense, praise.

There are a number of ways we could view this list. If you were working with a class, you could even put them all on slips of paper and sort them (let the class decide how to sort them). The first thing I noticed is that the psalm begins and ends with praise. This sort of bookending is not uncommon.

Not suprisingly, a lot of the words are adjectives describing positive characteristics of God: great, glorious, gracious, faithful, established, and holy. There are a couple of nouns which fit this category too: righteousness and strength. Sought is an interesting one because it might not be a word that comes readily to mind.

A few of the words have to do with God’s actions — give, deeds, and done. I think we can add food and recompense to this list too as they are things God gives us. In fact, throughout the psalm there are lots of words that have to do with doing. Deeds, works and making are mentioned in lines 4, 6, 12, 14, and 17.

Another theme which runs throughout is that of eternity. There are two terms for forever used in this psalm. I have translated one as forever and the other as for ages to keep them distinct but I don’t know that there is much difference in their connotations. They occur in lines 7, 11, 16, 19 and 23. On a not unrelated note, two of our first words have to do with remembering (lines 8 and 11).

Clearly Psalm 111 is a psalm of praise. But there is a little more going on here too. Just as your MOTHER poem would have told something about who mother was, so this acrostic poem tells us who God is.   The Bible frequently uses lists to do just this. Consider God’s self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 34:

The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped.” (Exod. 34:5-8; ESV)

This listing of attributes, I dare say is the standard way for us to define or describe God. We can’t sum Him up in one word and even such losts as these could never fully capture who He is, but the more such words and phrases we can give, perhaps the closer to the truth we get.

What can we conclude from Psalm 111 then? Some psalms depict God as a judge who sits on His throne. Others call upon His covenant love. In Psalm 111 there is reference to the law (line 15) and the covenant (line 19) and also to divine justice (line 22) but none of these seems to be the main theme of the psalm.  The two most prominent themes I see in Psalm 111 are doing and eternity. This an active God and an eternal one.

One final note: we mentioned that this is a psalm of praise but we also have a hint of its probably context. Lines 2 and 3 read: “I will laud the LORD with all [my] heart. In the assembly of [the] upright and [the] congregation.” This is communal praise, a psalm for God’s people to sing when they are together, to proclaim to each other the attributes of God.

Nebby

Was Charlotte Mason Reformed?

Dear Reader,

This is a bit of a sidebar to  my current series. I feel like I have discussed this topic many times over, but I am revisiting it for two reasons: I recently got into an online debate about it (I know, I know, stay away from forums) and I ran across some relevant quotes in rereading Charlotte’s second volume, Parents and Children. (Previous posts on this topic can be found here, here,  here, and here.)

In truth, the question is not usually “Was Charlotte Mason reformed?” I don’t think there are many people who would argue that yes, she was overtly reformed in the sense of positively propounding a reformed theology. The argument is usually that her church, the Church of England (CoE) in the late 1800s/early 1900s, was reformed and that she therefore was also reformed or at least that her outlook would have been in line with reformed theology.

It is beyond my expertise to examine the theology of the CoE of the time. My concern is with Charlotte herself and the statements she made. I will say that my understanding is that the CoE was intentionally very broad in its theology.  This is the position of Benjamin Bernier who writes extensively on the Anglican basis of Charlotte’s thought in a series of articles called “Education for the Kingdom” which have been published at Charlotte Mason Poetry (Part 1 of Bernier’s series can be found here; I discussed these articles previously in this post). Bernier says that:

“Among other important features of this context, one which helps us understand the contemporary applicability of Mason’s method to various religious backgrounds is related to a distinctive characteristic of traditional Anglicanism as an established church. The Church of England has always had a variety of currents flowing within it, often incorporating under the same roof groups holding conflicting opinions. For this reason, it has a long-established tradition of differentiating between essentials and non-essentials in Christian doctrine by limiting the essentials to that deposit of truth which can be shown to be commonly shared by all Christians, i.e. what all Christians believe at all times and in all places.

“This is essentially the same principle later identified by C.S. Lewis, another influential Anglican intellectual, who coined the term “mere Christianity” to identify it. It is this core of common Christian belief which Mason embraced from her Anglican perspective and used as a foundation to develop her interpretation of education for the children’s sake.” (Benjamin Bernier, “Education for the Kingdom, Part 1,” from Charlotte Mason Poetry, Feb. 18. 2017; emphasis added)

When examining at someone’s theology, it is important that we let that person speak for themselves and that we consider their words within the broader context of their writing. Which is to say, we can find quotes in which Charlotte sounds reformed, but we need to look at the range of what she has to say, not isolated quotes.

Those who argue either that Charlotte Mason’s theology was compatible with reformed theology  use one of two arguments (or, more usually, both). They either allege that Charlotte is in line with reformed theology or they argue that reformed theology is being misrepresented. I’d like to approach the topic by looking at some of these arguments:

“Charlotte Mason’s second principle doesn’t say what you think it says.” Charlotte’s second principle is often a stumbling block to those of the reformed faith. It is that which first raises the question in our  minds, “Wait, what is she saying? Can I really believe this philosophy of education if she is saying what I think she is saying?” If you are unfamiliar with it, that infamous principle says that “[Children] are not born either good or bad, but with possibilities for good and for evil.” The usual explanation of this principle is that Charlotte was dealing with the rigid class structure of her time which said that the children of the poor or the uneducated or criminals were inherently uneducable and were both morally and intellectually inferior. There are many articles which present this position including the note which Ambleside Online adds to the principle. It reads as follows:

“Principle 2 should not be understood as a theological position on the doctrine of original sin, but as a belief that even poor children who were previously thought incapable of living honest lives could choose right from wrong if they were taught. Charlotte Mason was a member in good standing of the Anglican Church of England, whose Thirty Nine Articles includes this statement: “Original sin stands not in the following of Adam, but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil.“” (emphasis added)

In other words, Charlotte was correcting a wrong idea of her time that certain children were less able than others. I agree both that this idea was present at the time and that Charlotte disagreed with it. I do not agree that Charlotte was not expressing an inherently theological position. Note that even in trying to defend this principle, Ambleside Online acknowledges that Charlotte was talking about morality as well as intellectual ability. Any time we are talking about morality, we are already in the realm of theology.

As I have argued in this post, Charlotte always views the child as a whole containing body, mind, heart and spirit. When she propounds her second principle, she has all these parts in mind and therefore she is speaking not just of intellectual ability but of moral and spiritual ability as well. From a reformed standpoint, if we wanted to counter the argument of her day — that certain children are morally and intellectually inferior– the answer is not to elevate the children of the poor and downtrodden but to bring down the children of the rich and privleged for we all are dead in our sins.

“Charlotte Mason believed in Original Sin.” This argument is closely related to the previous one (you will see that the editors of Ambleside Online make it in the quote above). I do not doubt that Charlotte did believe in Original Sin. The problem is that there are many definitions within Christendom of what Original Sin means and what the Fall did to man’s nature (I tried to give some idea of the range of Christian belief on the topic in this post). The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, does not see corruption in man’s reason (an idea which Charlotte clearly rejects). The core of the CoE’s position is presented in its Thirty-Nine Articles (the relevant portion is in the Ambleside Online quote above). There is nothing wrong in this statement in my view but it is not complete. Further examination shows that the CoE believes that man retains some kind of “formal freedom” to choose and do good. This formal freedom is a prerequisite for grace and allows man to cooperate to some degree in his own salvation (again, I discussed all this here). This is not the reformed position which goes beyond Original Sin is known as Total Depravity.

“Total Depravity does not mean what you think it means. Total Depravity is not utter (or absolute) depravity.” Which brings us to the next argument: that total depravity is total in the sense of affecting all parts of human nature but that man is not as evil as he could be. In other words, he is not absolutely or utterly depraved. Man retains some ability to do good (though, it is often added, not good that leads unto salvation).

There is some truth in this argument. We are not as evil as we could be and even unregenerate people seem to do “good.” The problem is in our definition of good. “Good,” I would argue, is defined by God. There any many things we do which seem “good” in the sense that they are outwardly in line with God’s will and law. If these things are done without faith, however, the Scriptures tell us that they are not truly good in the sense of being able to please God (Heb. 11:6).  Similarly, unregenerate people can be used to further God’s kingdom [for example, Jospeh’s brothers who sold him into slavery (Gen. 50:20) and Cyrus, king of the Persians, who is God’s instrument for restoring His people (Isa. 45:1)]. Their actions in so doing will be “good” on one level, but their actions are still sinful and they gain no favor with God by what they do (if that were possible).

While you can certainly find reformed people who say that Total Depravity is not utter depravity (see this article by R.C. Sproul; the PRCA, on the other hand, argues for absolute depravity), there is a gap between “not as evil as we could be” and “good.” Boettner says that when we are “not as evil as we could be”  we are not doing good but doing the lesser rather than the greater evil.  In other words, there is a false dichotomoy presented, either we are good or evil. In reality, there are not only two options, but there is room in between these positions.

Those who make this argument are, I think, being a bit disingenuous. There is quite a chasm between what Charlotte says (quoting that second principle again):    “[Children] are not born either good or bad, but with possibilities for good and for evil” and a classic statement of reformed doctrine such as is found in the  Westminster Confession of Faith which says that we are dead in our sins and “opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil . . .” (WCF, VI, 4).  Charlotte presents “possibilities for good and evil” as if these are equal and balanced options. While there may be some difference among reformed people in what exactly total depravity means, it is not this.

“Calvin also said similar things  — so it is okay if we do and/or you are misunderstanding what Calvinism is.” This again is a variant of the above argument which says that reformed position is being misconstrued. There is one quote  in particular which seems to circulate in CM circles and if often brought up in such discussions. It says that:

“In every age there have been persons who, guided by nature, have striven toward virtue throughout life. For they have, by the very zeal of their honesty, given proof that there was some purity in their nature. These examples, accordingly, seem to warn us against judging man’s nature wholly corrupted, because some men have by its prompting not only excelled in remarkable deeds, but conducted themselves most honorably throughout life.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 1, Book 2, Chapter III)

My goal is to give Charlotte Mason fair play and to look at what she says as a whole and not to take things out of context; we need to do the same for Calvin. The context in this case is really the entire argument he is making in his Institutes. The rest of the paragraph reads as follows (this is actually a different translation; above I used the quote as it appears in CM circles; below I am using the translation I own):

“Although we will explain what value this sort of virtue has before God more fully when we discuss the merit of works, nevertheless for the present we must say what is necessary for the matter we have in hand. These examples inform us, then, that we should not regard human nature as completely defective, since by its guidance some have not only done more than a few excellent actions but also have conducted themselves honorably the whole course of their lives.” [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Elsie Anne McKee, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p.80]

Though Calvin seems to leave place here for goodness apart from regeneration, he goes on to say in the next paragraph that there is “universal corruption” in the human race that is only restrained by God’s grace and that if He did not do so “there is no one who did not show by experience that all the vices . . .would be in him” (p. 81).  He goes on to speak of the reasons why some do good — fear, shame and honor among them — and to say that “the Lord restrains the corruption of our nature but does not purify it” (p. 81).

From here Calvin goes on to make clear that the goodness which seems to be in some men is a gift of God which He gives to some and not others. “Therefore, in our common speech we do not hesitate to say that one is born good and another is born bad, one born with a good nature and another with a bad nature; we still include both under the universal condition of human corruption . . .” (p. 82).

In the paragraph which was first quoted, Calvin says that he will return to this topic when he discusses the merit of good works and so he does. He reiterates that this goodness is a gift God gives to some — but note not all — unregenrate people at the same time calling such virtue “external and hypocritical ” (p. 336). This gift, however, appears to be a mixed blessing. In the next paragraph Calvin quotes Augustine who says that:

“‘ . . . they are not only unworthy of any remuneration [for their good works] but rather they deserve punishment because they contaminate God’s gifts by the pollution of their heart . . . They are held back from doing evil not by a pure feeling of uprightness or righteousness, but by ambition or self-love or by some other indirect and perverse consideration. Since their works are corrupted by the heart’s impurity from their first origin, they no more deserve to be placed among virtues than do the vices which deceive people because of some likeness and relationship to the virtues. To cut it short, because we know that the unique and perpetual goal of righteousness and uprightness is that God be honored, all that tends in some other direction rightly loses the name of uprightness. Since such people do not consider the goal which God’s wisdom has ordained, although what they do seems good in external action it is still sin because of its wicked goal.'” (pp. 336-37)

Thus while Calvin in the original quote seems to acknowledge that there is good that unregenerate people do, even to the point that he calls them virtuous and says that conduct their whole loves honorably, he ends by saying that these “virtues” are really vices, are sinful, and indeed deserve all the more condemnation because though a gift from God they are wrongly used.

I want to close by looking at some quotes from Charlotte’s second volume, Parents and Children. (No doubt there are many others which could be considered. This is the volume I have been re-reading recently so these are what are on my mind.) One I have already discussed in other posts is:

“But we live in a redeemed world, and one of the meanings which that unfathomable phrase bears is, that it is the duty of those who have the care of childhood . . . to foster the fruits of that kingdom in the children who have been delivered from the kingdom of nature into the kingdom of grace; that is to say, all children born into this redeemed world.” [Charlotte Mason, Parents and Children, (Seven Treasures Publications, 2009) p. 40]

There is a lot in this little sentence; I will not reiterate it all here other than to say there seems to be a very odd idea about soteriology contained in this phrase “redeemed world.” You can read my previous post on this passage here.

At one point Charlotte herself seems to speak of total depravity:

“But the man who is utterly depraved has no capacity for gratitude, for example? Yes, he has; depravity is a disease, a morbid condition; beneath is the man, capable of recovery.” (p. 86)

Here Charlotte nods to the doctrine of total depravity (though she actually uses the word “utter”) but notice her definition of it: it is a disease from which man may recover. This is not the reformed view. The biblical view (Eph. 2:1) and that of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF, VI, 4; see above) is that man is not sick only but dead in his sins. One does not recover from death.

Another quite theological passage which might help shed light on Charlotte’s thought is a little earlier in the volume:

“[Jesus] is far from declaring that men can do no good thing, that He assumes always that man in his proper state of dependence on God has the power to do righteousness, ‘Whosoever shall do the will of My Father, which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.’ But the question remains, How, considering our actual shortcomings, can any of us be spoken of by Jesus as righteous here and now? . . . [Paul’s] answer was, that according to Jesus, a man is accounted righteous, not from consideration of his works, but from consideration of his faith in God. Human righteousness is not a verdict upon the summing up of a life, but it is reckoned to a man at any moment from a certain disposition of his spirit to the Spirit of God . . . Righteousness, in the only sense in which it is possible for men, means believing and trusting God.” (p. 74)

On its surface, this does not sound entirely bad. Notice in the first sentence that she says man is able to do right if he is “in his proper state of dependence on God.” It is a little vague but we could take this to mean that those who are regenerate, having been put in a proper realtionship to God, are able to do good. That is certainly a statement I agree with. I also agree that we are “accounted righteous” and that this is not done on the basis of our works. The last part of the paragraph is a problem, however. Here Charlotte seems to make our justification (when we are declared righteous) dependent upon our faith. Righteousness, she says, is reckoned to us at the moment when we have a right disposition (that of faith) and thus she is able to say that righteousness means believing and trusting in God.  I will acknowledge that there is some ambiguity here as to what Charlotte means but my reading of it would be that she is making faith the work by which we are declared righteous, a work which we are all capable of. (Neither is there any mention of the fact that it is Christ’s righteousness which is applied to us.)

I don’t see any solid reasons to say that Charlotte Mason’s theology was reformed or in line with reformed understandings. She was a prolific writer and I will acknowledge that there is much of her work I have not read. But from what I have read, my inclination is to take her at face value and to to sya that she did believe that children, all children regardless of regeneration, have capacity for good. Those who say otherwise, I believe, either misrepresent Charlotte’s ideas or misrepresent reformed doctrine. The Church of England of the time (and still today, I believe) was a broad umbrella. I do nto doubt that Charlotte was well within the confines of orthodoxy as the CoE defined it nor do I doubt that she was a sincere believer. But I do not think we can call her reformed by any stretch.

So where does this leave us? As I have said before, I think that Charlotte’s view of children is fairly integral to her philosophy of education. I also think that her approach is about the best single take on Christian education out there. But I do think we need to use it with discernment and to ask oursleves where her particular theology may differ from our own and how that it going to play out in the practical details.

Nebby

 

 

Principles of Reformed Education: Living Books and The Living Word

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

My goal in this series is to define a reformed Christian theology of education and to give you practical principles which can be used in selecting materials for that education. Thus far, we have spent a good deal of time on the theoretical side of things (see this summary post). On the practical side, we have discussed the need for a broad education and for an approach that is interesting but not entertaining. Today I’d like to talk about one of the most essenatial parts of any education — books.

Words and The Word

Here is one of the most patently obvious statements of the day: Books are combinations of words. So in trying to get at why we use books and what books we should use, we need to begin with words. And, because everything is ultimately theological, we need to begin with the theology of words.

The Bible has quite a lot to say about words. It starts in Genesis 1 — God creates by the power of His Word (Gen. 1:3). We find out later that this Word is God the Son so that we may say that Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:1-3).

Beyond Creation, words in the Bible are quite powerful things. To name something is to have power over it. Thus God names Day and Night (Gen. 1:5), Heaven (v. 8), and Earth and Sea (v. 10). But it is Adam who names the animals and the woman (Gen. 2:19, 23). Later on, when God establishes a relationship with a person and changes their life trajectory in some way, He also changes their name (Gen. 17:5; 32:28; Mk. 3:16).

Words are not inert. A word has power. We have already seen the power of God’s Word in Creation, but even human words have power. Words cannot be taken back. Blessings and curses in particular are powerful things (consider, for instance, the story of Balaam in Num. 22-24).

It is through words that God chose to reveal Himself to us. He makes a deliberate choice not to use images but to speak (Deut. 4:15).  The Bible, God’s written Word, is His complete revelation to us. The things we see of Him in Creation may reveal His character (Rom. 1:20), but it is His written Word which tells us the things we need to know for salvation. It is “the only infallible rule for faith and life.”  And this written Word again has power; it is “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12; ESV).

The Power of Words in Education

The primary way our Creator, the One who formed our natures and knows them best, chooses to communicate with us is through words. I have argued that the purpose of education is sanctification, or better put that education is a subset of sanctification. As such it is a work of God. The stuff of education is general revelation. We may learn from what we see and hear and feel, but the information that we gather and pass along to one another is communicated primarily through words. This is not to say that there is no role for pictures and charts and graphs and even music and other media, but in the end when precise communication is needed we fall back on words.

A picture is worth a thousand words. I believe this is a true statement but the connotation it implies — that pictures are therefore superior — is not necessarily true. Movies are usually shorter than the books they adapt. There a number of reasons for this. A movie maker can depict in one image a scene that takes an author pages to describe. He does not need to say what each character looks like or what the scene is because he can convey these details in an instant. In this way images are more efficient.

But images also have their flaws. On one hand, they are too specific. An author may intentionally not tell what a character looks like or what she is wearing. The movie maker has to show the character somehow so he chooses an actress and wardrobes her. In so doing, he makes interpretive decisions that may change our opinions of that character and ultimately may change the story. At the very least,  he makes decisions that the author intentionally left to the audience.

On the other hand, images are often not specific enough. God reveals Himself to us in Creation but when He wants to communicate specific truths He uses words. Pictures are open to interpretation. We can look at the same piece of art and get different messages. This may happen with words as well, but the more we use our words the more clarity we give.

For all of these reasons, I am going to take the completely radical position that words, and particularly books [1], should be the backbone of our approach to education.

“Living” Books

If books are to be the primary means of education, the next question is: Which books?

If you are in homeschool circles, you may have heard the phrase “living books” [2]. Because the term is used in different ways, I am hesitant to jump on the bandwagon and use it as well. Depsite this, I am going to do so because I think it conveys an important truth.

In the verse from Hebrews quoted above, we are told that the Word of God is “living.” In the context of the Bible, to be “living” is to be life-giving. [Recall that Jesus promises the Samaritan woman “living waters” (John 4:10).] The Scriptures are living words in a unique way. Nothing else is on par with them.  Nonetheless, I am arguing that, insofar as education itself is the work of God and is part and parcel of our sanctification, the books we use should be living as well (living with a little “l”).  That is, they should be able, through the work of God the Holy Spirit, to give life.

How do we recognize a living book? There are not going to be hard and fast answers. We cannot go through our local library and make two stacks, living books and non-living books (though there may be some which clearly fall in one category or another). There are guidelines and criteria we can consider, however, among which I would list the following:

  • God tells us what sorts of things we should fill our minds with:

 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil. 4:8; ESV)

Living books should be true and lovely and pure. They should not be false or blasphemous or smutty.

Caveat: There are circumstances when we may want to read things that we know are untrue or have our children read books that we don’t agree with 100%. It is always good to know what the other side thinks and to consider new arguments. But such things should be read a) by those who are more mature and b) with discernment, knowing that all we read may not be true and that we are commanded to test all things.

  • Living books should be interesting. In my previous post, I argued that the education we give should be interesting but not entertaining. Our subject matter, which is the revelation of God, is inherently interesting, but many authors have a knack for making the interesting dull. On the other hand, many books written for children are designed to be overly entertaining in a way that adults think will appeal to children but which does not actually add content or value. Living books are written by people who love their subject and can convey that love. Because they find their subject interesting, they do not need to use gimmicks to sell it.
  • A corollary to the above: The fewer authors, the better. Because we look for books in which a knowledgeable author conveys his love for his subject, books written by committee are unlikely to fit this criteria. This is not to say all living books only have one name on the cover, but as a general principle books with fewer authors are likely to be better.
  • Living books do not need to be written by Christians. We have discussed previously that all truth is God’s truth and, as God uses the efforts of non-Christians, with or without their cooperation, truth may come to us through non-Christian sources. On the other hand, we should expect Christian scholarship to be better because Christians should have a superior understanding of truth (sadly, this is not always the case).
  • We are sinful people and we are not always attracted to what is best for us. This is particularly true if we have been accustomed to a diet of (intellectual) junk food.  Living books may not always be the most attractive books, and we may need to push our children to read something other than Captain Underpants.
  • Living books are worth reading more than once. When we read the Bible (the only capital “L” Living Book), we find ourselves getting new meaning even from familiar passages. Though no other book can approach it, little “l” living books are often enjoyable when read more than once. They may also have layers of meaning so that it is worth our time to revisit them.
  • Corollary to the above: A good test for picture books is whether the adult wants to read them again. If you groan when your child brings you THAT book once again, say no. On the other hand, if it is a joy to read aloud and the words roll off your tongue, it is probably a living book.
  • Living books can come in all genres and reading levels. They do not have to be non-fiction to be educational. They do not have to be written as fiction to be engaging. Prose and poetry, fiction and non-fiction, picture books and tomes can all be living.
  • To some extent, a living book is in the eye of the beholder. Many young boys can spend hours poring over what seem to adults to be very dry encyclopedia-like volumes on reptiles (or bugs or cars). If the child is soaking in knowledge, it is living to him. On the flip side, there may be a book you love but the child may just not connect with it. [But note that this requires discernement– the child may just be lazy and used to junk food (see above).]
  • The ultimate test of a living book is its effect: Does it draw us closer to God or reveal more truth to us?  If it makes you say “Wow, that is so cool,” it is probably a living book. The truth we get doesn’t necessarily have to be profound. It could be a small detail about the lives of ants. It could be a quite depressing yet realistic depiction of human nature from an unbelieving author. It could be a mental picture we get of another time or place we would not otherwise have known about. The size of the truth is not as important as whether it tells us something about God, His creation, or our own natures.

Which brings us to a final point: the power of living books is ultimately not in the books themselves but in God the Holy Spirit who enables us to apprehend the truths in them and to understand them within the context of His greater work. Just as the truths of the one Living Book (there’s that big “L” again) cannot be understood without the working of the Holy Spirit, so the truths found in other living books cannot be rightly understood apart from the work of God in our hearts and minds and a right understanding of the bigger picture of God’s creative and redemptive work.

Nebby

[1] I use the term books somewhat loosely here. Shorter works such as essays and pamphlets would fill the same role. There is value as well in the spoken word, aka lectures and talks, especially in a day and age when we can presreve them and return to them at will. The great value of books, however, is that they are timeless. They allow us to “hear” the words of a great variety of people from all points in human history.

[2] Charlotte Mason’s approach relies heavily on living books but classical educators will also use the term.

Principles of Reformed Education: Interesting but not Entertaining

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

Having spent the first seven months of the year talking about the theory behind a reformed Christian philosophy of education, I am now attempting to spend the latter part of the year addressing more practical concerns — How are we actually going to do this? What will it look like? What should I be doing with my kids when they wake up this morning?

As I chip away at these posts, I have been debating how to even discuss the topic. I promised you many times that I would begin going through subjects one-by-one and talking about how and why we learn them. Upon further reflection, I think we need to spend time on some general principles.

My goal in all this is not to create a curriculum which can be followed without thought. Educating our children is always going to be a mindful enterprise and a major presupposition of this series is that we should not be just buying someone’s curriculum and using it as is without some serious discernment. Rather than creating something new for you to buy, what I’d like to give you is principles to apply and tools to consider in selecting among the many options that are already out there.

We have already seen a few such principles. We talked about the expectation teachers should have — that God will work in their students to bring redemption and sanctification — and the attitude the teacher should have which should be one of joy and delight in the things of God as he himself grows in knowledge. Last time we said that we need to give a broad education, a principle which is founded in God’s creation of and purpose for the universe.

Today’s principle is this:

Education should be inherently interesting but not entertaining.

I have argued that when we educate we are placing before our students the things of God as revealed in general revelation. It is God’s truth, goodness, and beauty that we are putting before them. These things have their own inherent attractiveness.

As teachers, our job is not to try to soup up the things of God and to make them more fun or entertaining. We could not do so if we tried. Just as loud drums and strobe lights in worship manipulate the emotions of the audience but do not make the worship more pleasing to God so too our efforts to entertain in education are manipulative but not ultimately productive. One of my favorite analogies for education is that of a meal. We place the intellectual food before our children; they have to eat. If we want them to eat squash and they are not initially attracted to it, we can hide it in brownies. We will achieve a short-term goal of getting squash in them, but we do so at the detriment of a long-term goal; they will not learn to like squash or to see its innate goodness and value. So too in education, when we gussy up the things we are teaching, we may get a few facts in our kids, but we are teaching them to love games and crafts and flashy videos. We are not teaching them to love knowledge and truth. In fact, we are sending quite the opposite message — that knowledge is not interesting and that it needs us to make it palatable. We need to beware, then, of curricula which entertain. They are manipulative and they do so at the expense of a genuine love of knowledge.

We can also go too far the other direction, however. It is quite possible to take these things — and remember they are the things of God — and to suck all the joy and interest out of them. I used two analogies above — that of worship and that of a meal — so I will use these again. While we do not need to make our worship flashy to make it more pleasing, we should also be wary of worship which because of its slowness and/or lack of enthusiasm is genuinely hard to listen to. I argued that the teacher’s attitude needs to be one of genuine joy and delight. If we are unenthused or if our books and materials are dry and boring, the child will believe that the things of God are thus. Tedious repetition, boring textbooks which do little more than list facts are the dry fiber bars of education. They may get the necessary nutrients into our kids, but again they do not convey a genuine love of knowledge and truth.

Education is not always going to be a joy for us or our students. Education is sanctification. It is the renewing of our minds. But our minds would not need renewing if they were not fallen and corrupted [1]. While we should always be expecting God to work,  there will be times when we are not seeing progress or when the work seems slow and fruitless. The way through these times is through prayer, repentance, and just continuing to do the things we know we are supposed to be doing.

There is no perfect curriculum. As we evaluate the choices before us for a given subject, we must keep in mind that the things we are teaching are God’s things. They have an inherent attractiveness. We need to be wary on the one hand of resources which try to dress up that godly knowledge too much and thereby send the message that it is not in itself interesting and beautiful. And, on the other hand, we need to beware of resources which strip all the beauty from the things of God. In the middle ground somewhere is the place where God’s revelation is allowed to shine on its own with its inherent attractiveness. This is where we want to be.

Nebby

[1] Would Adam and Eve and their children have needed education if there had been no Fall? As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one. I do not think they had all knowledge (or all the knowledge appropriate for humans) but whether there would have been a gradual learning or whether they would have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and gotten that knowlegde instantaneoiusly we do not know.  One thing I think we can assume — that knowledge would have been inherently interesting and attractive to them, as it should be to us, if only our sin did not get in the way.

A Broad Education

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

In the coming weeks we will be going through individual subjects and looking at how we should view and teach them from a reformed Christian perspective. Before we do that, however, I want to make sure that we are understanding the context in which we do these things. While I will be talking about math and grammar and history individually, we are never to view these subjects as free-standing and unrelated disciplines.

This realization affects how we teach. It also affects what we teach. There is a time for specialization. That time is when one has a solid foundation of knowledge (and even then dabbling in other areas is quite useful intellectually). As our immediate concern is the education of children (pre-college) we are not too worried about that. There may be some level of concentration in the final years of high school, but most of what we are talking about is the years when one should be getting a broad, well-rounded education.

Why a broad education? In my recent  post on methodology  I discussed the kinds of evidence we can argue from. The biblical witness is, of course, always paramount, but, on issues to which the biblical text does not speak directly, we have recourse to logical reasoning and common sense on the one hand and observation  and scientific studies on the other. This particular issue is a good way to get our feet wet because arguments can and have been made from a number of starting points.

The trend in recent years has been to combine, or perhaps one should say recombine, various academic disciplines. This is exemplified by a change in acronymns.  Not so very long ago the buzz word of the day was STEM. STEM stands for sceince, technology, engineering and math. It was believed that to get ahead in this world (where getting ahead seems to translate to having the best technological innovations and therfore the best economic position) America needed above all a large number of students well-versed in these STEM subjects. This emphasis on one particular kind of knowledge led to an undervaluing of other subjects and an underfunding of the arts in particular. More recently,  popular opinion has backed away from this viewpoint and turned STEM into STEAM. The extra “A” is for arts as educators realized that the creativity which the arts engender is necessary for us to truly achieve their goals. [1]  Though the change is narrow (one wonders what has happened to history and the social sciences), the transition from STEM to STEAM represents a small concession to the idea that no one kind of learning can stand on its own.

While the STEM/STEAM movement pervades our elementary, middle and high schools, colleges and universities have also made a move towards what might be termed creativity education. In May 2013, Radcliffe Magazine reported on a conference with the title “Breakthroughs: Creativity across Disciplines.” The title of the conference sums it up. The keynote speaker, Richard Holmes, is reported to have said that “creativity, ‘with its criss-crossing patterns of inspiration,’ defies disciplinary borders” [Corydon Ireland, “How revolutionary leaps of insight occur across disciplines—they’re not always sudden,” Radcliffe Magazine (May, 2013)]. In 2014, the New York Times reported on the effort by a small number of colleges (four are listed in the article) to deliberately teach creativity.

“And creative studies offerings, sometimes with a transdisciplinary bent, are new options in business, education, digital media, humanities, arts, science and engineering programs across the country.” [Laura Pappano, “Learning to Think Outside the Box,” The New York Times (Feb. 5, 2014)]

The idea behind creativity education, as behind STEAM, is a very practical one — there are problems to be solved and crossing disciplines seems to allow one to solve them faster and more creatively.

Another buzz word,  “transdisciplinary” [2], implies a deeper philosophical viewpoint:

“Transdisciplinary teaching and learning operates from the belief that there is knowledge, concepts, skills, attitudes and actions that transcend subject area boundaries and forge the curriculum into a coherent transdisciplinary whole that is engaging, relevant, challenging and significant.” (“Transdisciplinary Teaching & Learning,” from Discovery College)

Such a transdisciplinary approach has been termed holistic in that it presents a worldview that seeks to unify all areas of knowledge:

“The transdisciplinary approach of holistic type, that overreaches the disciplinary fragmentation limits with its disadvantages, offers a vision of the world and life, as competent as possible, and has as starting point the human nature with all its complexity and diverse forms of manifestation.” [Daniela Jeder, “Transdisciplinarity — The Advantage of a Holistic Approach to Life,” Procedia: Social and Behavorial Sciences (July 9, 2014)]

The impetus of the STEM/STEAM movement is largely economic with some national pride thrown in. With transdisciplinary studies there is some awareness of a larger meaning. Ideas themselves are transcendent and there is some acknowldgement of a unifying truth behind it all. If, however, we begin with “human nature,” as in the quote from Jeder above, we will never get far or be able to establish a true unified view.

This is an argument Francis Schaeffer made numerous times and in numerous ways. Writing in the late 1960s, Schaeffer said that in humanism, or rationalism, “men and women, beginning absolutely by themselves, having only selves, try rationally to build out from themselves, having only Man as their integration point, to find all knowledge, meaning and value” (Francis Schaeffer, “The God who is There,” from Three Essential Volumes in One. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990). Because these men and women were not able to build a unified view of reality starting with themselves and having no idea of a Creator, they abandoned the effort:

“The philosophers came to the conclusion that they were not going to find a unified rationalistic circle that would contain all thought, and in which they could live.” (Schaeffer, p. 10)

In the 1960s and 70s, Schaeffer documented the abandonment of any effort towards a unified understanding of reality and with it the idea of absolute truth.

Now it seems that there is some movement back towards unification. This is a good trend and as Christians we should applaud it, but we also need to recognize that there can be no true and unified view that begins with man.

When we begin with God, we begin with unity. God is One (Deut. 6:4). It is He that has created all things, and this creation gives them their meaning (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11). It is also what gives them unity (Col. 1:17). As they have one Maker and one Sustainer (Heb. 1:3), they have one purpose as well (Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 8:6) which is to glorify and reveal their Creator (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:20).

We all tend to have subjects we don’t like. For one it is math, for another grammar or science or history. Yet the Bible tells us that all things are made by God and accomplish His purposes. Because they all both originate from and point to the same One, there is an inherent unity. On a practical level, we must learn our addition facts in one moment of the day and our spelling rules in another and our biology in still another. But as we do so we must always keep in mind that these things are part of one system because there is one Creator God.

Nebby

[1] There is no shortage of articles on STEM/STEAM available. One I found helful for explaining the trend and the changes in it is Christine Liao’s “From Interdisciplinary to Transdisciplinary: An Arts-Integrated Approach to STEAM Education.” [Christine Liao (2016) From Interdisciplinary to Transdisciplinary: An Arts-Integrated Approach to STEAM Education, Art Education, 69:6, 44-49, DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873]

[2] One may see various similar terms — transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. While they do have distinct definitions, delving into them is beyond the scope of this post. It is enough for our purposes to note that the trend is towards combining disciplines or at least crossing boundaries between them.

Charlotte Mason, Anglicanism, and You

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

Charlotte Mason Poetry had recently released in audio-form a series of articles by Benjamin Bernier entitled “Education for the Kingdom” (these articles were originally published on their website in 2017). The five articles in this series form one argument. Bernier, an Anglican minister and homeschooling parent, has done extensive research into the religious basis of Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy. This series presents his argument that Charlotte’s philosophy cannot be separated from her Christian religion and that it is a distinctly Christian philosophy of education.

Bernier has clearly done his research. He shows specific authors and their writings that he believes influenced Miss Mason and makes a compelling case for each. I have no quibble with his scholarship and am very grateful to him for the work he has put in and his willingness to share it. Nor do I disagree with his conclusions. All in all this is an article well worth reading for anyone who uses Charlotte’s methods or who is interested in Christian education (and I do think reading is probably a better option than the audio versions as there is a lot here to take in). What I would like to talk about today is not Bernier’s scholarship but what we do with the information he has given us.

Miss Mason sought to develop a disticntly Christian approach to education. What Bernier shows is that that approach is heavily influenced, as it should be, by Miss Mason’s own church, the Church of England.

“In order to properly understand Mason’s philosophy, it is important to grasp the essential socio-religious context of her life and work, whch in this case happens to be the Anglicanism characteristic of the late-Victorian era England.” (Benjamin Bernier, “Education for the Kingdom, Part 1,” from charlottemasonpoetry.org, Feb. 18 2017)

Bernier goes on to argue that as the Anglican Church of the time encompassed a wide range of opinions that the form of Christianity embodied in Miss Mason’s philosophy is one that focuses on essentials, what he calls, following C.S. Lewis, a “mere Christianity.”

Bernier argues that Miss Mason’s goals in education were intrinsically religious. He shows from lesser known early writings that her concern in education was mainly apologetic. Specifically her motivation was to guard to youth of her day against the then very new theories of Darwinism and the Documentary Hypothesis [1] which threatened traditional faith assumptions (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 2, Beginnings,” Feb. 25, 2017). He maintains that she never abandoned the faith-basis of her method though she was forced, as the method became more popular and widely used in different contexts, to downplay the overt religious elements:

” . . . the Christ-centered foundation of Mason’s thought was not diminshed one bit; it simply became less overy and less conspicuous to a general audience when her message was repackaged in the hope of influencing the evolving national system of education as such a crucial stage.” (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 5, Enthroning the King,” March 18, 2017)

Note that Bernier here calls Mason’s philosophy “Christ-centered.” Elsewhere he speaks of the gospel foundation of her work. Mason herself spoke of the gospel principles of education which she derived from a few passages from the Book of Matthew. “As far as I have been able to trace,” Bernier says, “Mason was the first Christian educator to define a connection between these words of Christ [in Matthew’s gospel] and a philosophy of education” (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 2, Beginnings”).

Bernier thus makes three points that we need to consider:

  1. Mason’s philosophy cannot be separated from her Anglicanism which is itself a kind of “mere Christianity.”
  2.  As Mason’s philosophy reached a wider audience, its Christian foundation became more covert to the point that many in the modern CM movement are unaware of it altogether (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 1”).
  3. The biblical foundation for Mason’s philosophy is found primarily in certain words of Jesus from the gospel of Matthew.

Given these points, those of us who use or are considering Mason’s philosophy need to ask ourselves a few questions starting with: Is Mason’s Christianity my Christianity? If you are not Christian, Bernier shows clearly that Mason’s philosophy is not for you as it cannot be separated from its Christian underpinnings. If you are Anglican (as Bernier is) you can probably use Mason’s methods in good conscience. If you are from another Christian tradition, you need to consider what her faith is and if this “mere Christianity” is enough for you. Bernier points out, for instance, that Mason renounced the authority of the pope (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 3, Christ Himself for Himself,” March 4, 2017). If you are a Roman Catholic using this philosophy, it may be that you can ignore her personal views and still use her methods. Or maybe not. But it is an issue that needs thought.

Personally, I am a reformed (read: Calvinistic) Christian. I have certain views of human nature (total depravity) which do not gel with Mason’s approach. I have blogged on this many times now (see this post and this one, for example) so I will not rehash all the arguments but I believe that when Charlotte states her infamous second principle — “[Children] are not born either good or bad, but with possibilities for good and evil” (“CM’s 20 Principles,” from Ambleside Online) — that she means this as a spiritual statement, that this statement is foundational to her philosophy, and that this view is incompatible with reformed Christianity [2].  Mason’s “mere Christianity” is not simply the core essentials that all Christians would agree to but is a kind of Arminianism (though no doubt it is not far from the faith of many evangeicals today). [3]

I also have concerns about the biblical basis of Mason’s philosophy. I do not deny that she derives her approach from the gospels, but I do question her use of these texts exclusively. There are many other passages in the Bible which speak of children and topics related to education, both in the Old and New Testaments (see this post, this one, or this one).  Though I doubt they had red-letter editions of the Bible in Mason’s day, her selection of these passages from Matthew, and only these passages, exalts the words of Jesus there recorded over other parts of God’s holy and inspired Word. And, as I discussed here, I do not even particularly like how she interprets and uses these passages.

“Education for the Kingdom” is well worth reading. Bernier’s scholarship is excellent. It is an article (or series of articles) that demands a response, however. Bernier shows us clearly what the religious basis of Mason’s philosophy of education is. But, if you are using or considering using this philosophy, it is not enough to know what it is, you must also ask if it is compatible with your own beliefs. Are Mason’s foundational ideas your own? And if they are not, is there enough commonality that you can use her methods as written in good conscience?

Nebby

[1] The Documantary Hypothesis is a theory about the origins of the biblical text, specifically the Pentateuch, which posits different authors for different sections and tends to chop the biblical text up into parts.

[2] Bernier quotes Charlotte Mason’s “A Catechism of Education Theory” which says: “‘What is the part of man? To choose good and refuse the evil'” (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 4, Meditation and PNEU Philosophy,” March 11, 2017). Though the immediate topic is education, the discussion is of spiritual food and it is hard to take this as anything but theological statement about man’s ability to choose.

[3] Charlotte Mason’s view of man’s state and abilites seems to be tied to the phrase “redeemed world.” Bernier, quoting Mason, also uses the phrase: “Christ is shown to extend His light and life over every sphere of knowledge and practice in this ‘redeemed world'”  (“Education for the Kingdom, Part 4, Meditation and PNEU Philosophy,” March 11, 2017).  I have discussed Mason’s use of the phrase and its possible meaning in this post.  I do not at this time feel completely confident in my grasp of what Mason means when she speaks of a “redeemed world” but I suspect that there is some odd soteriology underlying it.

Reformed Christian Education: Practical Details

Dear Reader,

This is part of an ongoing series in search of a reformed philosophy theology of education. You can find all the posts here.

Thus far I have tried to demonstrate that when we educate we place before children the things of God. Our expectation as teachers is that the Holy Spirit will use these things in their lives, for their salvation if they are not (yet) regenerate and for their sanctification, specifically for the transforming of their minds, if they are. Our attitude should be one of joy and delight as we also revel in God’s truth. We should view ourselves as those who, while perhaps a little further along, are also being thus sanctified.  With this under our belts, we are now ready to jump head-long into the practical details of education.

I want in the coming weeks to go through subjects one by one and talk about how and why we teach them. But for today we need to cover some of the boring background stuff. This is another methodology post.

As we move more and more into practical details of education, in some sense we move away from Scripture as well. We can and should look to the Bible to tell us what the nature of the child is, but we are not going to find much there about whether we should use worksheets or how to drill math facts or whether to teach American or world history first. We need to keep in mind the principles we have gleaned from Scripture, but, in matters on which God’s Word is silent, we then turn to the other resources He has given us. Among these I count science and observation, and logic or common sense. By science I mean the science of education and of the human mind including such things as studies that tell us how we learn or how our brains work. Observation is not quite so technical; it is simply the experience we have of our own children or of the child in general. God has given us all some measure of logical reasoning. While acknowledging that our reason has been affected by the Fall and  that we cannot always trust it, we should also make use of this gift in our efforts to discern what to teach and how to teach it. All of these things, of course, if there is any contradiction, must be subservient to the Word of God.  Nor should we hold them too tightly. We need to be willing to change and adapt or just plain admit we were wrong as we get new information.

We also don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Many have come before us and, while there is no one (not even Calvin) who is always right, we should make use of their wisdom. I have reviewed a number of books on education in the course of this study and will continue to pull from them.  On the theological/theoretical side of things two of my favorites are J.G. Vos and Cornelius Van Til. Vos’s book is very short, more of a pamphlet. Van Til has more to say though is main emphasis is not on the education of children but on  higher education.

On the more practical side (though she certainly does not neglect theory), Charlotte Mason has been a major influence on my thinking. I feel this needs some explanation as it may seem I have spent quite a lot of time arguing against Charlotte’s ideas. If it’s not inappropriate to make the comparison — Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they were the sect whose ideas were actually closest to the truth. I keep harping on Charlotte Mason for the same reason — because she is actually the closest to where I want to be. I have not found any other  philosophy of education which fits so well with the Christian worldview and which is so distinctly Christian. Yet her Christianity is not mine (she is Anglican and I am a Reformed and Covenantal Presbyterian) and our very real theological differences make very real differences in our approach to education as well. Nonetheless, we are both Christians and what I am trying to do is what she tried to do — to build a philosophy of education based on my theology — and we will likely end up with a lot of overlap.

A final note before we leave the methodology aside — one of my informing ideas is that truth, God’s truth, can come to use through non-Christian sources.  When we are looking at the science especially but even the more philosophocal arguments, we must not neglect non-Christian sources. They should always be held up to the light of Scripture and taken with a greater degree of reserve but we should also not be surprised to find wisdom in them.

In this light, I’d like to end with a call. I have read some things but there is a lot more out there. If you have favorite books on education or things you think I really should read or consider, please let me know! I am in need of more input.

Nebby

Sabbath Mood Homeschool

Desiring That a Sabbath Mood Rest on Your Homeschool

A Work in Progress Productions

Learn•Grow•Shine || Based in Attleboro, Ma

dayuntoday

my musings, wise or otherwise

Festival Fete

locally grown art, food, and merriment

StrongHaven

A Literary Homestead

journey-and-destination

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Harmony Fine Arts

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Sage Parnassus

Blogging about education, theology, and more

A peaceful day

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Living Charlotte Mason in California

Blogging about education, theology, and more

weeklywalrus

Weekly Walrus Whatevers

Creations by Maris

Handwoven Textiles

Fisher Academy International ~ Teaching Home

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Afterthoughts

Blogging about education, theology, and more

Leah's Bookshelf

Book Reviews You Can Trust

Duxbury Art Boosters

Supporting the visual arts in Duxbury Public Schools