Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

Is it Biblical?: CM’s First Principle

tDear Reader,

Recently I did a post on what it means to be “pure CM.” My conclusion was that, while there are some good, practical reasons to make sure we adhere diligently to Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education, the most significant argument its proponents make is that what Charlotte’s philosophy is derived from immutable divine law.

In evaluating whether this claim is true, I’d like to borrow a phrase we use in our church membership vows: “as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures.” There is no philosophy of education as such laid out in Scripture — if it were so, we wouldn’t need Charlotte’s work. Nor do I think any mere human being is going to be right all the time. But are her ideas substantially “agreeable to” and “founded upon” the Scriptures? This is the question I would like to try to tackle.

The Question before us and How to Approach it

Before jumping in, let’s clarify a few terms. By divine law I mean all of God’s revelation to us which includes both His special revelation, which we find in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and His general revelation which is revealed to us in His Creation. The latter may at times be readily apparent but often requires more diligent effort to discern. Science, both experiment and experience, is one of the tools by which we do so.

My object is to judge whether Charlotte’s ideas are “founded upon and agreeable to the Scriptures.” To “be founded upon” the Scriptures is to find an absolute basis in the Scriptures. To be “agreeable to” is to be in line with biblical principles. Those ideas which Miss Mason takes from special revelation we should expect to be “founded in the Scriptures.” That is, they should be clearly discernable from the Scriptures. Those ideas which she discerns from general revelation, including from her own experience and the science of the time, should be “agreeable to the Scriptures;” there must be nothing in Scripture which contradicts them, but they may not themselves be directly discernable from Scripture.

There are two directions from which we may approach the question before us: we can start with the Bible and see if Charlotte Mason’s philosophy falls into place with what it has to say or we can start with what Charlotte has to say and see if her statements have a biblical basis. Since my goal at the moment is to evaluate Charlotte’s philosophy rather than to formulate a biblical philosophy of education, I am going to opt for the latter (I am hoping this will also narrow the field as it gives me specific principles to test). While Charlotte was quite a prolific writer, she herself sums up her philosophy in 20 principles. These would seem to be a logical starting place. There may be many other claims Charlotte makes, and we could spend volumes perhaps examining all she has to say, but if these 20 do not have a good, biblical basis then there is not much point looking beyond them.

Diving Right in: Principle 1

Charlotte Mason’s first principle seems simple enough: “Children are born persons.” Yet there is a lot implied in these four words and much has been written on them. I’d like to begin with how Charlotte herself explained this principle. Briefly:

“A child is a Person with the spiritual requirements and capabilities of a person.” (Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 18)

We see here the two aspects of Charlotte’s own definition: that children are spiritual creatures and that they share the capabilities of their elders.

The child is “a ‘living soul,’ a fully developed, full-grown soul” and as such “has one appetite, for the things of God; breathes one air, the breath, the Spirit of God; has one desire, for the knowledge of God; one only joy, in the face of God . . . The direct action of the soul is all Godward, with a reflex action towards men. The speech of the soul is prayer and praise, the right hand of the soul is faith, the light of the soul is love, the love of God shed abroad upon it” (Charlotte Mason, Home Education, pp. 342-343). Thus children are capable of relationship with their Creator apart from adult intervention:

“The most fatal way of despising the child falls under the third educational law of the Gospels; it is to overlook and make light of his natural relationship with Almighty God. . . . This mischief lies in that same foolish undervaluing of the children, in the notion that the child can have no spiritual life until it please his elders to kindle the flame.” (Charlotte Mason, Home Education, pp. 19-20)

And not just capable of such a relationship, the child has a desire for God:

“The fundamental idea is, that children are persons and are therefore moved by the same springs of conduct as their elders. Among these is the Desire of Knowledge, knowledge-hunger being natural to everybody. History, Geography . . . Science . . . Art . . . Ethics . . .  and Religion, for, like those men we heard of at the Front, we all ‘want God.'” (Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education., pp. 13-14)

While the child as spiritual being is paramount in her thinking, the abilities of the child are not limited to the spiritual realm. In the first volume of her Home Education series, Miss Mason speaks of children as sharers of the common human desires — for knowledge, society, and esteem — and affections — “joy and grief, love and resentment, benevolence, sympathy, fear, and much else” (Home Education, pp. 100-101). In her final volume, she expands upon the desire for knowledge:

“If we have not proved that a child is born a person with a mind as complete and as beautiful as his beautiful little body, we can at least show that he always has all the mind he requires for his occasions; that is, that his mind is the instrument of his education and that his education does not produce his mind. (Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 36)

The mind, she tells us, means curiosity, imagination, reason, and conscience (Towards a Philosophy of Education, pp. 36-37). All these are present from birth. This Charlotte demonstrates through experience and observation, noting all that a child learns in their first three years. In contradiction to ideas of her time, she argues that the child is not “‘a huge oyster'” to be molded (Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 33) but:

“a person with a mind as complete and as beautiful as his beautiful little body, we can at least show that he always has all the mind he requires for his occasions; that is, that his mind is the instrument of his education and that his education does not produce his mind.” (Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 36)

These then are the propositions wrapped up in Charlotte’s first principle:

  • Children are spiritual beings.
  • They are capable of relationship with their Creator and even have a God-ward desire.
  • They have mind, including reason, will, imagination, and creativity.
  • They have a conscience, an inborn sense of right and wrong.

Before looking at what the Bible has to say, I’d like to say a few words about what I didn’t find. I went into this with one phrase in my mind: “made in the image of God.” I have seen many writers use this phrase to explain Charlotte’s first principle. I have done so myself. And I can’t say, given the volume of her writings, that Charlotte herself does not use this phrase, but in the works I looked at she did not. She uses the language we associate with the image of God and even quotes Augustine who had quite a lot to say on the image of God, but her primary point does not seem to be that the child embodies the image of God. I don’t doubt that she would agree it is so, but her point here is not to show the divine in the child so much as to show the human in him, to show that he lacks nothing that is present in  his elders.

Children in the Bible

Having examined Charlotte’s first principle in her own words, the question now before us is: “Is this principle ‘founded on and agreeable to’ the Scriptures?” In order to say that this principle if biblical we would like to demonstrate that children are spiritual beings who are capable of a relationship with their Creator and that they have a mind which is capable of various functions including reason and discerning right from wrong (i.e. a conscience).  

The Hebrew Bible uses four main designations for children of various ages: there are babes and infants (from the Hebrew root ‘ll), little ones (Hebrew taph), children (Hebrew yeled), and youths (Hebrew na’ar). The various terms are not always clearly distinguished, but we can make some general observations about each.

Youths are teens and young adults, as in Isaiah 40:8-9 where “youths” and “young men” are used in parallel.  They are capable of real work as servants (Gen. 22:19; Ruth 2:15) and armor-bearers (Judg. 9:54; I Sam. 14:1). Joshua is a “young man” when he begins to serve as Moses’ assistant (Exod. 33:11). Those who spy out the land are “young men” as well (Josh. 6:23). David is a “youth” when he battles Goliath (I Sam. 17:33) and evinces a strong show of faith. One in youth is capable both of sin (Gen. 8:21; Ps. 25:7) and of faith (Ps. 71:5), though youth is also still a time of tenderness and inexperience (I Chr. 22:5, 29:1; II Chr. 13:7). The Bible does not give us a clear line at which this stage of life begins (they are not so concerned as we are to label teens, tweens, etc.) but I think it is significant that Jesus at age 12 stays in the Temple and argues with the teachers, showing His intellectual maturity at that age (Luke 12:41ff).

Moving down the scale, yeled “child” seems to be used fairly loosely, referring at times to a weaned child (Gen. 21:8; I Kgs. 17:21) and at others to what is clearly a baby (Exod. 2:6; 2 Sam. 12:16).  They are included in both the mourning (Ezra 10:1) and the rejoicing of the community (Neh. 12:43). A child is the object of training and discipline (Prov. 22:6; 23:13; 29:15) and is called to holiness:

“Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright.” (Prov. 20:11)

“Little ones,” from the Hebrew taph, seem to be those who need care. The root seems to mean “to trip” or “to take tiny steps” so “toddler” could be a good translation of this term. It often overlaps with yeled. “Little ones” are paired often with women and the elderly, and even with cattle (Gen. 34:29; 43:8; 45:19; 46:5; 47:24; 50:8, 21; Num. 32:24, 26; Judg. 18:21). Like women, they are not counted (Exod. 12:37). Even they, however, are included in the assembly of the people (Josh. 8:35; II Chr. 20:13) and are required to keep the Law (Deut. 31:12). The New Testament also indicates that children are included in the covenant community (Acts 2:39).

The Hebrew root ‘ll gives us a collection of words translated variously as “babes,” “infants,” and “sucklings.” What is clear of these children is that they are still nursing (which may have gone on for quite some time in that culture). Psalm 8 is a well-known passage which seems to speak of infants giving praise to God:

“From the mouths of babies and infants you ordained strength.” (Psalm 8:2; my translation)

When Jesus quotes this Psalm, it is praise which comes from the babies’ mouths:

“‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?“” (Matt. 21:16)

My own interpretation of this Psalm would be that, whether it refers to praise or to strength, that it is using the infants somewhat ironically. Just as Jesus would say that God could raise up sons of Abraham even from the stones — rocks being nothing like living sons–, the psalmist here says that strength could come even from infants, those known to be least strong. (If we understand the term to be “praise” the idea is the same for infants do not speak and “praise” as such cannot come form their mouths ordinarily.)

Nonetheless, the Bible makes it clear that God’s involvement with children is from birth and even before:

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” (Ps. 139:13; cf. Jer. 1:5-7)

John the Baptist shows some evidence of faith even in the womb:

“And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.” (Luke 1:41a)

Timothy too is said to have known the Scriptures “from infancy”:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it  and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:14-15) 

A number of New Testament passages seem to speak of the faith of children. Charlotte, in her exposition of what she calls the gospel principles of education, points to Matthew 19:14:

“But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.'” (all biblical quotes are from the ESV unless otherwise noted)

She uses this verse to argue that we must not prevent children from coming to God. In its context, this verse is quite literal; the disciples were physically preventing children from approaching. 

Another well-known passage is found in the previous chapter:

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’  And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, ‘Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

 ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'” (Matt. 18:1-6)

In its context — the disciples are disputing over who of them is the greatest — Jesus praises the humility of children. Though I do not think it is the main purpose of the passage, I do think this passage tells us that children are capable faith. The second paragraph tells us something interesting too — children can sin. We don’t immediately think of the negative, but to have a relationship with God can be good or bad; we may be in relationship with Him or we may offend Him.

Matthew 11 seems to imply that children are capable of understanding the things of God:

“At that time Jesus declared, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.'” (Matt.11:25; cf. Luke 10:21)

In Matthew’s gospel, this prayer of Jesus comes right after His condemnation of the unrepentant cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida; in Luke there is an intervening passage in which the 72 return rejoicing that they have cast out devils and Jesus tells them to rejoice instead that their names are written in the Book of Life. The context seems to indicate that these are not literal children but that those who are like children — the uneducated and perhaps the not-too-bright — will understand. As in Psalm 8, the use is ironic; God allows children to understand what those who should know more and better do not. Similarly, in Romans 2:20, Paul uses children in parallel to the blind and foolish who are in need of instruction and guidance. In other words, children are used in these passages not because of their knowledge but because of their habitual lack of knowledge.

What conclusions can we draw from all these Bible verses about children? Here’s what I see:

  • The Bible does not give us an age at which one goes from being a child to an adult but it does seem to distinguish between children — including children, babes and little ones–, and youths. The latter, while inexperienced, are essentially adults. Teens and young adults would likely be called youths.
  • Children (all those below teens) seem to be lumped together; the terms used for them are not clearly distinguished. They are assumed to be ignorant or foolish and in need of instruction and discipline.
  • Nonetheless, they are counted among God’s people and at important points (such a covenant renewal ceremonies) are included in the assembly of God’s people.
  • Children are also called to follow the Law and to holiness. They can also sin.

Conclusions

I hope I have established here a basic format which I can follow in future posts. The claim of Charlotte Mason’s adherents is that her philosophy is worth following and preserving because it is based on God’s immutable word; these posts are my attempt to see if this claim holds up. My goal then is to examine Miss Mason’s ideas, and in particular her 20 Principles as the most concise and accurate embodiment of those ideas, to see if they are “founded on and agreeable to the Scriptures.”

In this post I have presented Charlotte’s first principle, looked at how she herself explained it, and then presented Bible verses which seem to speak to the same question, in this case the nature and abilities of children. My children and husband watch a lot of Mythbusters in which an idea or claim is tested to see if it holds up; their always end by saying whether a myth has been confirmed, busted, or something in between, so I’d like to follow  their lead and do the same for CM’s principles.

In this case, when she said “Children are born persons,” Charlotte Mason was claiming that they are spiritual beings capable of relationship with God and with all the capabilities of a mind including, among others, reason and conscience. In the Bible verses we looked at we saw that children are included among the community of God’s people, that they can sin, that they are held to the Law, and that they are capable of faith. I am stamping this principle CONFIRMED. The Bible does not speak specifically to some of the finer points about whether children are creative or how much they can reason but the biggest claims Charlotte makes in her first principle are clearly shown in the Scriptures.

Until next time,

Nebby

 

Method vs. System in the Law of God and Living Books

Dear Reader,

In the very CM spirit of making connections, I would like to discuss educational methods,  living books, and the Law of God.

In Charlotte Mason’s first volume, Home Education, she urges parents to consider the “method” behind their parenting but not to be sucked into accepting a “system.” Following a method, she says, implies “an idea, a mental image, of the end of object to be arrived at” (Charlotte Mason, Home Education; Wilder Publications, 2008; p. 18). But, Charlotte warns, a method may degenerate into a system which “is pledged to more definite calculable results” (p. 18) and “is mischievous, as producing only mechanical action instead of the vital growth and movement of a living being” (p. 19). Notice the contrasts: A method is an idea, a system is mechanical; a method aims at an image whereas the results one gets from a system are quantifiable. With a method, you have a picture in your head of where you are going. With a system, you can use a checklist: Have I done this or that? You can assign a number (a test score perhaps).

A system is not living and should not be used on living beings; it is for things. But a method takes into account the needs of living beings. It accounts for personality. If a method is an idea, it follows that a system is fact-based. So we see the first connection: as a method is to a system so living books are to textbooks. The one gives ideas and feeds a living soul; the other is mechanical and fact-based. It is not fit food for a living being. The attraction of a system is that it is quantifiable — you can measure it and you know what you are getting. So too when we assign a non-living book, we can give fill in the blank questions. We know what we want — specific facts — and we can check off whether the student has learned them. Not so a living book which demands narrations. One test of a living book is that Jane and Bob will get different things out of it or even that if Bob rereads it he may get new things out of it. Its results are unpredictable, but of far greater value than the facts we get from our textbooks.

I am indebted to one of the members of my local CM discussion group for the second connection. She equated method and system to the Law and Gospel. I am going to alter this slightly. I think the line is not between Law and Gospel but between what God’s Law truly is and how we portray it. God’s Law (and have said before in this post and this one) is a perfect image. God in  His being defines what is good. His Law is not a list of do’s and don’ts but is a perfect picture. If we were doing picture study, I would show you a picture — let’s say it’s the Mona Lisa — and ask you to describe it. You might do a wonderful job and tell me about the woman and what she is wearing and how she is smiling and even maybe say something about the artist’s brushstrokes and how he achieved his effect (if you are very good at these things). But if I took your description and handed it to another artist and said “now paint this,” would he produce the Mona Lisa? Of course not. No matter how good your description of the picture is it cannot truly convey the picture itself. So too our synopses of the Law of God do not accurately convey the Law. Even the best of them — of which the 10 Commandments is one — are only approximations. This is what Jesus tells the Pharisees when He chastises them for obeying the letter and not the spirit of the Law. It is what He teaches when He says that “Thou shalt not murder” also means don’t curse your brother or that lust is akin to adultery. The best summation of the Law is the briefest: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.” But we don’t like this because it is hard to see if we are doing it. We want that checklist; we want quantifiable results. God humors us in that to a certain extent; He does give us the Ten Commandments, as well as various other summations of His Law, but they are all imperfect; they cannot truly encapsulate a Law that is just as full and perfect as its Creator.

I started with Charlotte Mason’s discussion of parenting philosophies so I will end there. Parenting is a big, important job. It’s not one you can do over (at least not with the same child) and, because we love our children, we consider the outcomes vitally important. We really, really don’t want to mess this one up. I think we often start with a method in our heads; we have some picture or where we want to go. But we get tense about the results and whether we are really getting there so, as Charlotte says, we let it degenerate into a system with quantifiable results. It doesn’t help that this is a long-term project and the outcomes are not easily or soon visible. But — just as in our efforts to keep God’s Law — the answer is not in ourselves. The answer is in the Gospel. It is Grace. It is God doing for us what we cannot do ourselves.

Nebby

The Spirit and the Bride

Dear Reader,

I am reading again some essays by one of my favorite authors, Frank Boreham. Boreham was something of the Billy Graham of his day, a prolific and well-respected minister, first in England and then in Australia and New Zealand. In his time he wrote dozens of volumes of essays and sermons and was popular world-wide. He only died in, I think, the 1950s so I don’t know why one hears so little of him today (though perhaps in other countries he is still better known?). I find his works unfailingly comforting and insightful.  This is not deep theology, no long technical discussions, but it never fails to convict one.

In one of my favorite of this favorite author’s books, A Handful of Stars: Texts that have moved great minds, Boreham discusses the biblical texts that have shaped the lives of individuals, both real and fictional. James Chalmers, a missionary to the South Pacific who was violently martyred, had as his text, Boreham tells us, Revelation 22:17: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price” (ESV). Boreham speaks of the call on Chalmers’ life — how he felt compelled to go to far distant lands, to be the voice who, having heard, calls others to “come” as well.

I was struck as I read this by the role of the two who call — the Spirit and the Bride. The Bride, we know from Scripture, is the Church; the Spirit, of course, is God the Holy Spirit, the comforter whom Christ left with us on His ascension.  Both proclaim the same message: “Come.” Both call to sinners. Perhaps only the work of the Holy Spirit is truly necessary, but God calls those who have themselves heard to work with Him and to proclaim the message as well. The call of the Church is audible; that of the Spirit is internal. At times one may be saved only through the latter (Boreham tells the story of St. Francis of Assisi’s conversion in another essay, “The House that Jack Built”; this seems to have been such a conversion) but the norm, as God has ordained it, is for the preaching of His Word, the call of the Bride, to play a part as well (this is how Spurgeon was saved, as Boreham tells us also).

The practical application of all this for us is this: as we have heard, so we must declare to others. The call of the Church falls on many ears; we do not know which hearts the Spirit will also call to and which will come to faith, but it is our obligation to call nonetheless. And the message we give must be that which we have received. The Bride calls the same thing that the Spirit does: “Come.” We are not at liberty to make up a new one, neither do we need to embellish it, to make it more attractive. Acceptance happens when the Spirit also calls, not when we dress it up and make it more compelling. The results do not rest with us. Lastly, though some, like Chalmers, are called to far-distant lands and may work for a time singly or in small groups, the charge is for the Church. Not that we leave all the work to our ministers but that we must work within the body of God’s people. It is not an individual mission but a corporate one.

Nebby

The Way of Reason in the Book of Judges

Dear Reader,

Are you familiar with this refrain from the Book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25)? I am embarrassed to say that though I have known for years, decades even, that this is the guiding principle of the book, that I have misunderstood its import.

When I read these words, “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes,” I thought only of people doing what they liked, following their own way. I thought these people were selfish and undisciplined, that they had no guiding principle, no concern for absolute truth, no awareness of the law of God.

But I missed a key word in the middle of the sentence: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Do you see that? They did not just do what they felt like (though no doubt they did feel like it). They did not follow whims and passions without consideration. They used their reason. They did not say “I don’t care what is right, but I will do as I feel.” But they found what was right — at least to their own thinking – and did that thing.

Their problem was not that they indulged in the wrong or did not care whether what they did was wrong or right. They did care. They took pains to find what was “right.” The problem was that they relied upon “their own eyes.” They used their reason but they came to wrong conclusions because they had no guiding principle outside themselves. Their reason failed them.

This is what Charlotte Mason tells us about what she calls the Way of Reason — that it is a tool and cannot be our master. It can, and has, been used to justify any ends so we must be careful of our beginnings. We cannot rely upon our own eyes but must begin with something firm and true, something outside ourselves:

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Prov. 14:12; ESV)

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.” (Prov. 3:5)

For “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7a)

Nebby

Education and Sanctification

Dear Reader,

I touched on this recently but thought it deserved a post of its own. To cut right to the chase, my big idea is this: Education is a part of Sanctification.

I want to be very clear first on what I am not saying: I am not saying that education in any way saves us. I am not saying that if we just teach people the right things or in the right ways they will be saved.

Sanctification is for people who are already saved. First comes justification, then sanctification by which those who have been saved are made more and more righteous. To be sanctified is to be made holy and to be holy is to be set apart for God. So when the Holy Spirit — and it is His work — sanctifies us, He makes us more and more as God wants us to be, indeed more and more as God is.

Education is also the work of the Holy Spirit. This is an idea I have gotten from Charlotte Mason. In her philosophy of education, the Holy Spirit is the Great Educator; it is He who gives all knowledge and wisdom and who is the source of all truth.

If both these works, then, are of the Holy Spirit, it is not too large a leap to say that the one is a subset of the other. And that is what my point in this post is — Education is a part of Sanctification. Both are the work of the Holy Spirit and the one is subsumed under the other.

Some Bible verses which I think add to my point:

 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2; ESV)

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” (James 1:5)

“For the Lord gives wisdom;
    from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” (Proverbs 2:6)

“Daniel answered and said:

“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
    to whom belong wisdom and might.” (Daniel 2:20)

This idea is a very Puritan one. Though Charlotte Mason was a member of the Church of England, she and the Puritans seem to have had some overlap in their understanding of the role of education. Education was so important to the Puritans that they demanded and educated clergy and early on established Harvard College. The Covenanters (to which my own denomination traces its roots) in the young United States were willing to break laws to teach slaves to read; they could not conceive of growth in Christianity without literacy (Joseph S. Moore, Founding Sins, p.??).

But I do not think the place of education is only to allow us to read our Bibles. That is certainly part of it but education is not merely the servant of our sanctification. It goes beyond that.

Both Charlotte Mason and John Calvin said that all truth is God’s truth. It is not merely our religious or Bible knowledge which comes from God, but all knowledge and wisdom, though it may at times comes through worldly or non-Christian sources. As God used the Persian king Cyrus to restore His people and His temple, so He can and does use non-believers to bring truth to mankind.

When man in Adam fell, his whole nature was corrupted. So in Christ our whole nature is, gradually in this life, restored. Part of this is our intellect. Of course many non-Christians are quite intelligent and highly educated (I am related to quite a few of these). Nonetheless, I maintain that education, rightly done, should add to our sanctification. When we learn about God’s creation, including human beings, we bring glory to Him. And as we grow in wisdom, we become more like Him, which is after all what sanctification is all about.

Nebby

The Beginning and End of Charlotte Mason

Dear Reader,

What is at the core of Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy? What is its heart? I have been pondering this question recently. Of course, Charlotte was a real person so I am sure there is one right answer to this. I hope to ask her some day 😉

But for us here now who can’t talk to Miss Mason what we have is six thick volumes of dense, old-fashioned language. Charlotte herself summed up her philosophy in Twenty Principles, but even this is a lot to take in at once.

Depending on our own backgrounds and needs we may all come away from Charlotte’s works with slightly different understandings of what she was all about. There are right and wrong answers. If you tell me “Charlotte would have loved unit studies,” I can show you from her writings that she would not. But saying, succinctly, what she is all about is  a more difficult task.

This is my attempt to say what, for me, the core of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy is —

I see Charlotte’s first and twentieth principles as two bookends that hold her philosophy of education together. If you can’t recite them by heart, here they are:

“1. Children are born persons.

20. We allow no separation to grow up between the intellectual and ‘spiritual’ life of children, but teach them that the Divine Spirit has constant access to their spirits, and is their Continual Helper in all the interests, duties and joys of life.” (“CM’s 20 Principles” from Ambleside Online)

Taking these two together, I see the two most important things anyone can know: who we are and who God is. If you get those two right, all else will fall into place. I have said before that I find Charlotte’s philosophy very biblical, and this is why: because she has these two elements in place.

The first principle is so short that it is enigmatic. It’s a bit like saying “Man is made in the image of God.” (In fact, I’d say it’s an awful lot like that.) We can say it and we can agree on it, but we can still mean very different things. And putting it into practical application is a whole ‘nother can of worms. Here is how I understand it: Children, from birth (actually before birth, but, again that’s another issue) are persons. They are not blank slates or blocks of clay or something else that evolves into adult people. They have things to learn, yes, but they are just as much persons as you or I. Though few parents today actually say that their kids are blank slates, they often act as if they get to mold and shape their children as they will or as if children are preparing for a life which will come some day. They are not preparing life; they are living it. To Christian parents I would say especially: your kids are not preparing to have relationships with God; they have them now. They already stand before Him and have their own relationship with Him. Don’t take the burden for their salvation or holiness on yourself; let Him work in their lives.They are, just as much as you are, sinners made in the image of God. We tend to fall off to one side or the other, either emphasizing their sin natures to much or extolling them as perfect, innocent beings. They are neither sinful beasts nor perfect angels. They are what you are. That is what “children are boen persons”means.

Which brings me to the 20th principle. Dividing religion from life, the spirit from the body, is a very modern, western concept. The work of educating our children is akin to the work of saving and sanctifying them: it is God’s work, not ours. In fact, I would go so far as to say that their education is just one aspect of their sanctification (I think I fall in line with the Puritans in this). The Holy Spirit, for Charlotte Mason, is the Great Educator. We can step back because He is there doing the job. A corollary of this is that all truth is God’s truth (both Charlotte Mason and John Calvin said this). Christians may be tempted to put the Bible on a pedestal and to turn to it for answers on all questions. I firmly believe that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule for faith and life (think about this: only modifies infallible in this statement). But they are not the only rule or guide. All truth belongs to God, whether we find it in nature or C.S. Lewis or Darwin.

What is at the heart of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy? It is what we find at the beginning and the end: children are people — we must respect their personhood — and as people, God is working in them just as He is in you.

Nebby

 

How Should Christians Decide Who to Vote for?

Dear Reader,

Have you had any political arguments this year? Have you had someone tell you you are not a true Christian because of who you may or may not vote for? I am not going to tell you if you should vote or for whom you should vote. What I want to talk about today is how we decide.

For too long Christians have been able to muddle along without too much thought on this issue. We have compromised our values. We have learned to separate a candidate’s personal life and character from his public office. We have voted on issues without carefully considering the people for whom we are voting. This election cycle it all seems to be coming to a head. Because we have not considered the principles behind how we vote, we find ourselves faced with choices that appall us and we, as a community, don’t know how to navigate these waters.

A lot of what I am going to say comes from a book I have been reading, Messiah the Prince: The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ by William Symington. This book was originally published in 1879. There is a more modern and easier to read follow-up, Messiah the Prince Revisited by J.K. Wall. I have both. Wall does a good job of boiling down what Symington has to say, but if you really want to understand the arguments I think you need to read Symington. If you find his language inaccessible, read Wall first but then go back to Symington for the fleshed-out version. Symginton’s books discusses Christ’s kingship over the church and over the nations and the relationship between them. For our purposes today, we are just interested in chapter 7, “The Mediatorial Dominion over the Nations.”

In his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle Paul tells us, “ And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17; ESV). We are not Christians only on Sundays. We are not Christians only at church. We are to act and speak in a way that brings glory to God every day of the week; at home and at work; with family, and friends, and neighbors. If every part of our lives if subject to Christ, then when we enter the ballot box we must also consider what Christ would have us do. Honestly, I think most of us still get this. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t beat each other up for doing the “un-Christian” thing. Here is how Symington puts it:

“But the choice od representative, it should be borne in mind, is a civil right, the exercise of which involves, to a great extent, the welfare of the nation. It is not the individual himself alone that suffers from an improper use of this privilege, but the community at large. It is, consequently, of immense moment, that he exercise it, not from passion, fancy, or prejudice, but under the guidance of sound Christian principle . . . Never can the circumstance occur which will warrant him to say, Now I mat drop the Christian and act the civilian or the man. It is not in matters of an ecclesiastical nature merely that he is to act as a Christian. He must conduct himself as a Christian at all times . . .” (Messiah the Prince, pp. 167-68)

The Bible actually has quite a lot to say on what makes a good ruler. These instructions, both the explicit and the implicit, are for both the rulers and for their people. “God,” Symington says, “has given [the people] in his Word a supreme rule of direction, in which the character of civil rules is described, and only such as seem to them to be possessed of this character are they at liberty to appoint” (Messiah the Prince, p. 164). In other words, if God says “appoint wise rulers” (see, for instance, Exod. 18:21; Deut. 1:13), we are disobeying Him when we appoint unwise ones.  Indeed to have a foolish ruler is a curse upon a nation (Eccl. 10:16).

What then are the qualifications for a ruler? Symington puts them in three categories: natural, moral, and religious (pp. 164-65). We seem to have jettisoned them in reverse order. First we said it doesn’t matter if a candidate is Christian. Then we overlooked his personal moral failings, and perhaps even his public ones. Now some even disregard natural qualifications (or the lack thereof).

Does a candidate need to be a Christian in order for us to vote for him? Symington would say yes, that is the first but not the only qualification. This election cycle has me wanting to agree with him. Perhaps it is an overreaction to want to push the line back that far. But my point here is that we have let the line slip. We have said that it doesn’t matter if a man cheats on his wife; that is personal and doesn’t affect his political role. Then what if he cheats on his personal income taxes? What if he is deceitful in his public role? Even this we as a society seem ready to overlook.

King David was one of the best Israel ever had. He was a man after God’s own heart. But his personal sin (adultery with Bathsheba) became a professional sin (sending his own general, Uriah, to his death) and ultimately led to a plague upon his people.

Nebby

Sabbath Mood Homeschool

Desiring That a Sabbath Mood Rest on Your Homeschool

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

The Common Room

....Blogging about cabbages and kings since 2005.

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

Craft Projects For all Ages

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

Just Right Porridge

... you'll lick your bowl clean...