Posts Tagged ‘reformed christian’

What We Study and Why: Fine Arts

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.

This week we will be discussing fine arts, by which I mean why and how we study what other people have produced. Hands-on art, what we ourselves might produce, will be discussed in another post.

Why We Study the Arts

Most recently we looked at literature; many of the same arguments will apply to the arts. As one of the main goals in studying literature is to explore ideas, so with art and music. These ideas are often more subtly expressed when we use images, colors, and sounds instead of words, but they are ideas nonetheless. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say, and there are some ideas which are better communicated in an instant with an image than with those many words.

An artist (or musician) is like an author. Human words on not on the same level as the Word of God, and human art is but an echo of the artistry of God in creation. But we can learn from it nonetheless. Art and music allow us to reflect on what God has done, to take some small portion or idea and to meditate on it for a time.

The arts often follow the philosophy of the time. As such, they tell us as much about ourselves as about God, but this is still useful and good. We learn of the evil in our own hearts and, by God’s grace, our potential for good as well. We learn about our own need and that of our neighbor. Francis Schaeffer’s books do a wonderful job of demonstrating the philosophical trends that underlie art and of reflecting on what is good and bad in human art (see bibliography).

God not only made the world good, He also made it beautiful. Another reason we study the arts is simply to experience beauty. When Paul in Philippians tells us what to fill our minds with, he includes “whatever is lovely” (Phil. 4:8; ESV). Some perhaps tend towards a utilitarianism that sees no place for beauty, but when God in the Old Testament gave instructions for His tabernacle, it was a thing of beauty with much ornamentation and artistry. I remember a professor telling me that more than anything else the Hebrews were known for the beauty and ornamentation of the high priest’s robes.

Ultimately, the reason we study anything is that it points us to God. Beauty itself — which cannot be explained by evolutionary science (see Ferris Jabr, “How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution”) — points is to the Creator (see Rick Stedman, 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God). Hannah Anderson, in her exposition of the Philippians 4 passage, tells us that the Greek word used for “lovely” describes “both the thing itself and the response it produces in us” (All That’s Good, Kindle loc. 1642).  There is an irony here — beauty, by the very virtue of its being anti-utilitarian serves a purpose, to show us that there is more than what we see, something worth sacrificing for.

How We Study the Arts

If there are things which are lovely, then there are also things with are un-lovely. As God embodies an absolute standard of Truth, so He embodies a standard of Beauty. We live in a very subjective age which allows all things and says that whatever is good in your eyes is good for you. That is not what we believe when it comes to Truth, so we need not believe it about Beauty.

I am not the person to say what that absolute standard of beauty entails. Volumes could be written on the subject I am sure. Nonetheless, as I often do, I will give a few thoughts–

The arts have form and meaning. Ideas are expressed in a particular medium and within that medium in a certain genre or style. I find the ideas, once we are able to discern them, are much easier to evaluate. Which is not to say that we should only study pieces with good ideas; it is often just as valuable to look at the despair of our fellow man. We see his need and we see our own. We follow bad ideas to their conclusions and see their futility. The test of art is often in the result — does it ultimately point us to God? Sometimes it is the things that make us run the opposite direction which get us there quickest.

The intent of the artist is not necessarily the most important thing. He may not get beyond his own despair. He may not see the futile end of his ideas, or even if he does he may never reach for something more, but his work can still drive others to God. Just as the prophets did not always understand the full meaning of their message, so the artist may not fully understand his own work.

Education, I have argued, is the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as one person may look at an impending storm and think about nothing more than a ruined day while another sees the power and glory of God, so our reactions to art or music will depend upon the Holy Spirit’s work in our hearts. These moments of inspiration sometimes come upon us suddenly, but more often they come to us because we have developed that elusive thing called discernment.  When we steep ourselves in truth and in all those good things that Paul lists in Philippians, we become more adept at recognizing them when we meet them again.  This is another reason it is good to expose our children to good art and music — they will develop a taste for it and be better able to recognize what it good and true and beautiful.

The above remarks largely concern the content of art, but we can also consider its form. While there are certainly forms of art and music that I do not like, I am not a snob about it. There is always a new style that appalls an older generation. Many of the things that we now consider classic were once themselves shocking.

I am not arguing that we all need to study grunge rock because it could embody truth.  I think it is fine to follow one’s own tastes up to a point at least. On a practical level, I find it very helpful to study the arts alongside history. Schaeffer’s book, again, provides a good guide for how the art and music of a time reflect its ideas. Older children would even read this for themselves (there is a video as well which is even easier to digest).  I will include in the bibliography a list of resources we have used on in studying art and music,

Nebby

Bibliography

Books on the theory behind the arts and beauty —

how they express ideas and how they point us to God

Anderson, Hannah. All That’s Good. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2018.

Horner, Grant. Meaning at the Movies. Crossway, 2010.

Jabr, Ferris. “How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution,The New York Times Magazine (Jan. 9, 2019).

Ryken, Leland. The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly about the Arts.  Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2005.

Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005 (originally published 1976).

Stedman, Rick. 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God.  Harvest House, 2017.

Resources for studying the arts

Adventures in Art. (Cornerstone Curriculum)

Beethoven’s Wig. (CD collection)

De Rynck, Patrick. How to Read a Painting: Lessons from the Old Masters.

Hillyer, V.M. A Child’s History of Art.

Janson, Horst W. and Dora Jane. The Story of Painting from Cave Painting to Modern Times.

Kohl, MaryAnn. Discovering Great Artists.

Lacey, Sue. Start with Art (series).

Persons, Marjorie Kiel. Themes to Remember. (books and CDs)

Roalf, Peggy. Looking at Paintings (series).

Sister Wendy: The Complete Collection  (video series)

Usborne Children’s History of Art.

Van Loon, Hendrik. The Arts. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1937.

Implementing a Christian Education in Public, Private, or Homeschool

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.

If you are in Christian parenting circles, you have probably read articles or heard talks or even listened to sermons on how you should school your kids. Maybe you have agonized over the choice. Maybe you have felt snubbed at church for making the “wrong” choice. Maybe (be honest now) you have looked down on others for their choices.

I am not here today to give you the ultimate answer to the public vs. private vs. homeschool debate. Instead I am going to argue that we are asking the wrong question. At the end of the day (or hopefully at the beginning of the day) your child needs to go to school somewhere. That’s still a decision that will have to be made, but it is not where we need to start. We need to start not with “How do I school him?” but “How do I educate him?”

I began a few years ago looking at different approaches to education (find that series here). What I discovered was that each has certain base assumptions about who the child is and what the goal of education is. Because children are (or at least will be) people, who the child is actually a statement about human nature. And because education prepares us for life (or is a part of life, depending on your philosophy) the goal of education points us to the goal of life. In other words, every approach to education is a philosophy of education which makes assumptions about human nature and the purpose of human life.  Your curriculum writers and teachers may not acknowledge these assumptions, they may not even know they have them, but they are still there under the surface affecting what we do and how we do it. And, perhaps even more significantly, they have practical consequences which tend to exhibit themselves more and more over time in the lives of their victims . . .  er, students.

We need to begin not with public, private, or home but by discerning a biblical approach to education.  That is what I have been trying to do in my current series. I am not going to rehash it all today. What I’d like to talk about is what we do once we have that information.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you have a well-developed, biblical philosophy of education, your child’s bottom still needs to be somewhere at 9am on Monday morning. What’s the next step? You need to make the best choice you can for your family where you are. There are a lot of variables which might affect your family’s decision — geography and finances and special needs come to mind immediately.

Homeschooling certainly allows for the most flexibility in curriculum choices, but to simply say we will homeschool and think you are done with the decision is not to provide a biblically based approach to education. In some ways the homeschooling parent has it the easiest — they can make their own decisions with regard to approach and curricula. But they also have it the hardest — they have to make their own decisions! There are a lot of choices out there and, frankly, I have yet to see any one curriculum that I would consider on target in terms of what education can and should be. The decision to homeschool is not the end of the process, it is only the beginning and a curriculum with a few Bible verses adorning the page does not make a biblical philosophy of education. For those of you who do homeschool, I am trying to provide guidelines (based on my own philosophy of education) to help you pick from among the curricula that are out there. Perhaps even more importantly, you will need to decide how to implement the resources you choose. All that is part of the ongoing conversation we are having here so I will not belabor it today.

There are a lot of reasons why families can’t homeschool, or at least might not find it the best available choice for their family. Let’s talk first about the Christian school. Just as being advertised as a Christian homeschool curriculum does not guarantee a biblical philosophy of education, so too a Christian school may not have a truly biblical foundation.  I am not saying that if that local Christian school has the wrong philosophy that you should not use it. I am saying to use it discerningly. The homeschooling parent has a lot of freedom; the parent who sends their child to a school has less, but they don’t have none. There is a lot one can do to correct or reframe what is taught in school.

Similarly if you choose to use the local public school or another not-inherently-Christian school, you can still work to put the education your child is getting within the framework of the proper ideology. You may have even less influence on what is being taught [1], but you are still the parent and at the end of the day it is up to you to provide the framework through which your child views the world.

I will say up front that as my children are homeschooled this is not my situation, but I’ll share my thoughts nonetheless —

Implementing a biblical philosophy of education does not start with a pile of worksheets or even books but with an attitude and an expectation. Even if your children are  in a great Christian school with the right philosophy of education, these are things they should still be getting from their parents. And if their school is less than ideal, you will just have to be all the more mindful of your expectations and attitude. If we want to instill a love of knowledge in our children, we need to model it. They should see us reading quality books and appreciating art and music. They should see in us a genuine love of knowledge. If you are reading books because you want to set a good example but are not enjoying them yourself, you will not be able to keep it up. Try other books. Try another subject. Try easier books. Good books don’t have to be hard books. Look for authors that love their subjects. I am a big proponent of the written word, but if you need to start with some video or audio lectures or use audio books (listen to them in the car when your kids are a captive audience!), by all means do so. You can learn from fiction as much as from non-fiction. Ultimately, the reason we learn anything is because it is part of God’s general revelation to us. Feeding your own mind should be part of your spiritual growth whether you have kids to impress or not so find something, anything that works for you. And when you have found it, talk about it. Talk about it to your kids and maybe even more importantly talk to other adults in front of your kids. Have real conversations about ideas.

You should absolutely have good books and videos and music and art around your house, but I would be very wary of requiring extra schoolwork of your kids. Most schoolkids have way too much busywork to start with, Even if what you are giving them at home is of a higher quality, it will weary them. Don’t provoke your children by overburdening them. Make sure their schedules allow for down time.

Surround them with opportunities to interact with good materials. Make sure they have access to good books, and limit their access to frivolous ones. Again, good books don’t have to be hard books.  You can respect their need to take in a little intellectual junk food after a hard day at school without exposing them to every piece of kiddie drivel out there (and there is a lot). If they are still young enough to let you, read to them. Have family read aloud time (bedtimes and mealtimes are great for this; so is the Sabbath). If you start young, they will let you continue even when they are teens.

In education we are exposed to God’e general revelation. Nature is the most obvious and available source. Spend time outside. If the kids want to play outside without you, that’s great, but if not cultivate habits that get you all outside.

Resist the urge to sneak educational material in secretly in like black beans in brownies. The things of God which are the fodder of education should be inherently interesting. We don’t want to make them boring but we also don’t need to dress them up.

Don’t worry too much about gaps but do care about the overall arc. We all have gaps in our knowledge. I never had a history class that got beyond WWII and I am not sure we ever studied the Middle Ages, These details are not overly important. Someone who loves knowledge and knows how to get it can learn what they need to learn. It is much more important that your child see God in the things he is learning. If your child is not in a solid Christian school, they are probably not getting this. It is up to you to provide it. That means first of all that you need to believe that all things are under God’s providence and point to Him. And secondly, that you need to speak and act as if they do. If we want to see God’s hand in the great events of history, we need to begin by seeing it in the ordinary day-to-day events of our lives. A lecture is okay once in a while, but sincere belief is a lot more convincing. If it’s not natural for you to talk about what you believe on a casual, everyday basis, even to your kids, you need to get there. Education is a part of sanctification. That is a journey we are all on and the best way to help your kids along that path is to be consistently, deliberately advancing along it yourself and to let them see that.

Those are my suggestions — do you have others? Things that have worked for you?

Nebby

[1] In Massachusetts, where I am, the courts have ruled that when you drop your kids off at the school door you have no say in what they are taught.

What We Study and Why: Literature

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.

Last time we talked about why and how to study langauge, thinking of language as a whole including those exciting subjects spelling and grammar. This time I’d like to talk about literature. I am thinking here particularly of fiction, no matter its genre. I have already made the case for books, and “living books” especially, as a mainstay of education, but why do we read things that are not factually true?

Why We Read Fiction

Before diving in, I’ll offer a disclaimer that I have blogged on topics akin to this many times in the past. A lot of what follows will refer you to books and articles I have reviewed in the past. A bibliography of these books will appear at the end.

The Scriptures show us by example the value of stories. When God begins to tell us about Himself and how we can and should relate to Him, and how we often fail, the genre He chooses is narrative.  (And, of course, the Old Testament contains a good chunk of poetry as well.) Though these are stories, they are true stories, so the question remains: Why read stories that we know aren’t true? Turning to the New Testament we find that this is just how Jesus taught. He told parables, aka short stories. And while the message of each parable is true, we have no reason to suppose that there ever really was a good Samaritan or a prodigal son.

As long as we understand  that what we are reading is fiction, there is a lot of truth that we can get from these made-up stories. As I discussed in this recent post, narrative can have a power over us that a dry recital of facts does not. It invites us in because we relate to it on a level that goes beyond the rational. Fiction speaks to not just our mind but our emotions as well. It allows us to live through events and to experience people and places that we would not otherwise.

Stories are often a way to explore topics that we don’t want to face directly.  In  Meaning at the Movies, Grant Horner, a Christian, shows how the truth that people try to suppress comes out in the stories they tell. Similarly, Frank Boreham (see this post) argues that the desire in us for something more, beyond the world as we know it, is a sign that there is indeed something more. Rick Stedman in his 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God (see my review here) makes a similar point.

Once Upon a Time: A Short History of Fairy Tale by Marina Warner (see this post, this one, and this one) makes the case that we deal with subjects in fiction, particularly fairytales, that are hard to address in real life. Not only do these stories allow us to get a feel for situations which are hard or which we have not yet faced, they provide us with solutions. They give us heroes and show us examples of how to act, or, often just as valuably, how not to act. Charlotte Mason makes a similar point (see this post or this one).

The subjects we explore through fiction need not be fantastical. I found myself recently, through no overt planning on my part, reading a number of books that deal with the subject of adultery. Some of these books were non-fiction and some were fiction. Of the two, I found the fiction spoke a lot more to actual human experiences and dealt in a much more realistic, and biblical, way with the consequences, even if the author was not (to my knowledge) Christian.

I had the wonderful opportunity once to go to a conference entitled the Story-Formed Child. The main speaker, Sarah Clarkson, made the point that we are living in a story, God’s story. It is the meta-narrative of human existence. When we ourselves tell stories, we are echoing our Creator and also contributing to the overarching story, or at least our human understanding of it. This is a paraphrase but it’s what I got from Clarkson at the time: Literature is our human conversation through the ages about what it means to live well. Another author who contributes to this thought is Terry W. Glaspey in his Children of a Greater God. He argues  that we need to create a moral vision for children, something that is more than a list of do’s and don’ts. Stories allow us to do this.

Learning facts is not the goal of any of the subjects we study but if possible this is even more true when it comes to literature. We read fiction to experience times and places and events that we could not otherwise. We read it to explore situations that might be hard to face. We explore options. We learn heroism as well as the negative consequences of our actions. Literature above all is about ideas.

How to Read Fiction, with some warnings

Having said which, we must add that not all books are created equal and that narrative, because it is powerful, can be used for evil as well as good. The fact that stories involve our emotions and draw us in means that they can be easily used to manipulate (think about that next time your pastor uses a sermon example). We need to be discerning in choosing what we read, and even more so in what we give our children to read (I have discussed some of the things to consider in picking books previously in this post).

We do not always need to read Christian authors. Sadly, Christian books are often overly moralistic. Our stories do not need to draw conclusions for us. They are often more powerful when we are left to draw the conclusions for ourselves. The stories of the Old Testament rarely tell us who is good and bad or whether an action is acceptable or not. Think, for example, of when Abraham says Sarah is his sister or when Jacob deceives Esau or when Joseph tells his brothers his dreams. We are not told how to feel about these incidents. but we do feel about them and we see their consequences.

Non-Christian authors sometimes actually have a benefit in that they are able to picture to us a world without God. They may show us our own hearts, and it can be a very scary picture. Which is not to say that we should only read non-Christians either but that we need to look at the overall book rather than judging by the religious affiliation of the author.

We also need to value truth. Our God is a God of Truth. There is some leeway in historical fiction. We understand going in that it may have to supply details that cannot be known, but there are better and worse ways to go about this (see this post). For older children in particular it can be helpful to research what is true and what may have been added or supplied by the author. Not to beat up on Christian authors but I do find they tend to be some of the worst for supplying details, especially when their topic relates to Scriptural events.

In some ways it is safer then if a book concerns a world which is entirely imaginary. I know some Christians have issues with books that contain magic elements and the like. Personally, I do not, at least not inherently. I think we suspend belief when we read books and understand, particularly if they are set in fantastical worlds, that what happens in their worlds might not happen or be okay in ours. Ideas that affect us can sometimes best be explored in worlds that are not our own. I am actually a lot more likely to have problems with books set in the real world but which assume certain dynamics, like that siblings are always opposed to one another.

Fiction, in all its varied forms, can be one of the most valuable things we can read. It allows us to take ideas and to hold them like a gem and turn them over in our minds and explore their facets, but it also requires a lot of discernment.

Nebby

Bibliography: Books on Stories and Narrative

Boreham, Frank. The Golden Milestone. Chariot eBooks, 2014 (originally published 1918).

Clarkson, Sarah. Caught Up in a Story: Fostering a Storyformed Life of Great Books & Imagination with Your Children. Storyformed Books, 2014. (I haven’t actually read this one yet but it’s on my list.)

Glaspey, Terry E. Children of a Greater God. Harvest House, 1995.

Horner, Grant. Meaning at the Movies. Crossway, 2010.

Mason, Charlotte. “The Knowledge of Man: Literature,” in Towards a Philosophy of Education at Ambleside Online, pp. 180ff.

Stedman, Rick. 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God.  Harvest House, 2017.

Warner, Marina. Once Upon a Time: A Short History of Fairy Tale.  Oxford University Press, 2016.

What We Study and Why: Mathematics

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.

Last time, we wrapped up the section of this series on practical details. You can find that summary post here. Today I’d like to begin a new sub-series on individual subjects. I have argued that the teacher’s attitude is paramount and so a large part of what we are doing here is just to frame each subject rightly. Whether you are a homeschooling parent or employed in a school setting, you may find yourself having to teach subjects that just don’t thrill you (what on earth does grammar have to do with the kingdom of God?). While we will touch on some practical details as well (why teach pagan myths? does everyone need calculus?), the main goal of this part of the series is just to show why we teach each subject.

There are a couple of big ideas behind what we are doing here, including: All truth is God’s truth; In education we lay before our students the things of God, primarily His general revelation which comes to us in many forms; and The purpose of education in the life of the believer is for the transforming of his (fallen) mind. (If you are just dropping in, I do recommend reading some of what has come before; see this summary post on the theory behind it all.)

With these goals and ideas in mind, we will ask for each of the subjects we address: Why do we study it? How does it point is to God? How does God reveal Himself or His truth through this subject? In answering these questions, we will look at Scripture whenever possible but we will also look at quotes from many other sources.

Finding God in Mathematics

Let’s jump right in then to mathematics. Most would agree that some level of math instruction is necessary. Beyond the basics, there tend to be two camps — those who see no need to go beyond the basics and those who find pleasure and meaning in higher mathematics. The problem is that there is a gap — we don’t convey the beauty of math when we are teaching the basics and so those who do not naturally enjoy it drop it as soon as possible and never get to the part where it seems to expand and take on a wider significance. The solution is to show that math is lovely even at the lower levels (that’s where the teacher’s attitude comes in again). So if you have lost to joy of math, or never had it, here are some quotes to inspire you:

The laws of mathematics point us to the Law of God:

“We take strong ground when we appeal to the beauty and truth of Mathematics; that, as Ruskin points out, two and two make four and cannot conceivably make five, is an inevitable law. It is a great thing to be brought into the presence of a law, of a whole system of laws, that exist without our concurrence,––that two straight lines cannot enclose a space is a fact which we can perceive, state, and act upon but cannot in any wise alter, should give to children the sense of limitation which is wholesome for all of us, and inspire that sursum corda which we should hear in all natural law.” (Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, pp. 230-31)

Mathematics conveys eternity:

“But education should be a science of proportion, and any one subject that assumes undue importance does so at the expense of other subjects which a child’s mind should deal with. Arithmetic, Mathematics, are exceedingly easy to examine upon and so long as education is regulated by examinations so long shall we have teaching, directed not to awaken a sense of awe in contemplating a self-existing science, but rather to secure exactness and ingenuity in the treatment of problems.” (Ibid., p. 231; emphasis added)

Math underlies the universe. It may even be called the langauge of God:

“Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.”  —Galileo Galilei

Math is the foundation of many other fields, both sciences and arts. Its beauty can be seen even by non-Christian authors:

“Mathematical analysis and computer modeling are revealing to us that the shapes and processes we encounter in nature — the way that plants grow, the way that mountains erode or rivers flow, the way that snowflakes or islands achieve their shapes, the way that light plays on a surface, the way the milk folds and spins into your coffee as yo stir it, the way that laughter sweeps through a crowd of people — all these things in their seemingly magical complexity can be described by the interaction of mathematical processes that are, if anything, even more magical in their simplicity.

….

“The things by which our emotions can be moved — the shape of a flower or a Grecian urn, the way a baby grows, the way the wind brushes across your face, the way clouds move, their shapes, the way light dances on water, or daffodils flutter in the breeze, the way in which the person you love moves their head, the way their hair follows that movement, the curve described by the dying fall of the last chord of a piece of music — all these things can be described by the complex flow of numbers.

“That’s not a reduction of it, that’s the beauty of it.” [Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (New York: Pocket Books, 1988) pp. 182, 184]

That’s all fine, you say, I am inspired but I am still teaching long division to cranky eight-year-olds. A couple of thoughts: I argued recently that when educating we must be careful not to provoke children. Math is a field in which it is very easy to provoke. It tends to come with a lot of repetition. I do think we should all learn to do long division without a calculator. But if I have ten such problems to do, I get my calculator. Why should we ask a second grader to do so many at once? Sometimes more is less (how’s that for a math concept?).

There is a certain progression to math; one can’t do algebra before learning to count. But that doesn’t mean the beauty of math needs to wait until high school or beyond. There are resources which are accessible at younger ages but which either introduce concepts usually reserved for later or give more of a big picture understanding of math, bringing out its complexity and elegance. (I will add a brief bibliography of some we have used at the end of this post.)

Lastly, there is the elephant in the room question: When will I ever use this? And its corollary (there’s a nice math word): Why do I need to learn calculus anyway? As for the first question, I reject the premise. Our approach to education is not utilitarian. Whether we will use upper level math has nothing to do with anything. The end we have in view is not the balancing of checkbooks or even being able to do advanced physics (for which I hear math is useful) but to bring glory to God which we do by learning about Him as He has revealed Himself through creation, and (as the quotes above are meant to show) mathematics is an integral part of that creation.

As for the second question, not everyone needs to learn calculus. We are finite people and time and energy spent on one subject come at the expense of another. So while I do think it is good to learn these things, beyond a certain point we must recognize that we are different — indeed unique, individual — people and that we don’t all have to learn the same things (see this post on core curriculum). So perhaps you don’t have to learn calculus.

I’d like to end with a plea — as I work on this section of the series, I am giving you my best ideas and resources but I could use some help. Please reply to this post or contact me if you can help with any of the following:

  • What questions do you have about teaching (insert subject here)?
  • Do you have good quotes about math, or any other subject, that you have run across, particularly about why we teach them and how they point us to God and/or teach us about Him and His creation?
  • Any favorite resources? Since math was our topic this week, feel free to add in the comments your favorite big-picture math resources.

Nebby

A Brief Math Bibliography

Life of Fred Math by Stanley Schmidt (Polka Dot Publishing) — You may have heard of this alternative math curriculum. It takes a narrative approach and follows the life of 5-year-old math professor Fred. Though the author says the elementary books can be used as a stand-alone math curriculum, I was always hesitant to do so. They do, however, make a lovely supplement to whatever else you may be using. The stories and such may be overly silly for some but my kids always loved them. The elementary series is a collection of thin books with short chapters. It is easy to add in one chapter a week. Ages 10 and up could breeze through them pretty quickly. The upside of these books is that they introduce concepts that usually don’t come up until later such as set theory.

Here’s Looking at Euclid by Alex Bellos

The Number Mysteries by Marcus du Sautoy

Thinking in Numbers by Daniel Tammet

These three books are all of a type. They are roughly middle school level books (and up) that have relatively short chapters which disuss math concepts like pi, prime numbers, and how people in Iceland count.  I am sure there are many other such books out there; these are just a few we have used.

 

 

 

Principles of Reformed Education: Summary Post

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 part of the series has been to lay out some principles to help you evaluate books, materials, and curricula. For a summary of the big ideas behind it all, see this summary post.

This series within a series — the practical details — began with an explanation of methods. As we move away from theory and into the nitty gritty, we are not going to be able to find Bible verses that bear directly on the questions we have (Are spelling tests inherently evil?). To the extent that we can, I have tried to elucidate biblical principles while acknowledging that we are on less certain ground here.  We must rely more on personal observation, scientific studies, and logical reasoning. And as good reformed people we also acknowledge that our reasoning has been affected by the Fall and that we think is unassailable fact is often tainted by our own experiences, emotions (also tainted by the Fall), and presuppositions.

With that firm foundation, we dove right in.

Before we even get to curricula, we must begin by looking at ourselves, the teachers. I began with a presupposition: that the attitude and expectations of the teacher can do more to facilitate or to undermine learning than almost anything else he does. Therefore we must begin with right expectations and right attitudes. Simply put, the teacher should expect that God will work in the minds of his students. The attitude of the teacher should be one of joy and delight in the things of God because he himself is growing in knowledge and because he believes that they are the things of God and delights in them.

Once you’ve mastered that easy first step, you can begin to consider materials. So we talked about what to teach. I argued for a broad education that encompasses many subject areas [not just the trendy STE(A)M ones] based on the principle that all knowledge comes from God and as He is One so it is ultimately unified. More recently, we tackled another trendy question: Is there a core body of knowledge all people need to learn? With some qualification, my answer to that one is no, there is not (note that we are not talking here about religious knowledge as such but about all those subjects it is still legal to teach in public schools).

After we have considered the what, we must ask how? There are various aspects of this. We began by considering what the materials we use should be like. I argued that they should be interesting but need not be designed to be entertaining. Since the things we place before children in education are the things of God, they should be inherently interesting, We must be wary, on the one hand, of curricula which suck all the inherent joy out of knowledge and, on the other, of curricula which try to dress it up in clown costumes complete with red honky noses thereby sending the message that it needs our dressing up.

I also made the argument that the written word, that is, books, should be the primary tool by which we place such knowledge before our students. There is a place for other media as well, including but not limited to lectures, videos, audio recordings, visual aids (such as maps and charts), fine art, and music. Whichever we are using, we should use discernment in selecting our sources. We need not limit ourselves to Christian “teachers.” On the one hand, all truth is God’s truth and He may choose to reveal it to us through non-Christians. On the other, many who claim to be Christian are either not or are but have bad theology underlying what they are saying which affects their presentation of their subject. Nonetheless, we should expect more truth and better scholarship to come to through Christian sources. Because this is a tricky area, it is important for us to vet our sources and to consider such things as the age of the child we are educating. We also took a bit of a side trip to examine the power of narrative, for good or evil.

Lastly and most recently, we discussed what we do with this material— Do we ask kids to reproduce what they are learning and if so how and why? This includes testing but also more mundane things like worksheets, essays, and narration. Specifics will depend on the setting one is in (home vs. school, small vs. large class) but there are some principles we can seek to adhere to. First and foremost is not to provoke children with unnecessary and/or tedious work. Second is that we need to consider the benefit to the child. I argued for narration as a wonderful tool and discussed some pros and cons of other methods.

For the moment, I think these posts will wrap up the “practical details” portion of this series. I have been promising you that I will go through individual subjects one by one and my intention is to begin that next time.

Until then,

Nebby

Principles of Reformed Education: Pick Your Teachers Well

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.

How do we grow in knowledge? How does one learn anything? Depending on the sort of knowledge we have in mind, there can be varying answers. I would not say I know how to scuba dive if I have only read a book on the topic. In all disciplines there are people who go out in the field or go back to primary sources and analyze and develop new theories.

Though some kind sof knowledge require hands-on experience and though there will always be the need for discoverers who return to the sources, none of us starts from scratch. We all get some base of knowledge from those who have come before. And most of the time, for most of us, the bulk of our knowledge comes to us through other people, whether in person or through books and, increasingly, other media. This is as it should be; God created us to be in relationship with one another (Gen. 2:18), and He commands us to pass on our knowledge to the next generation. This is especially true in the family (Deut 6:7) but is not exclusive to the family (Tit. 2:4-5).

Today’s principle is fairly simple: Most human knowledge is communicated from mind to mind therefore we should choose our teachers well. 

God Himself is the source of all wisdom and knowledge (Acts 7:10; Jam. 1:5). Because we, in Adam, were created in His image as spiritual beings (i.e. ones with a spiritual as well as a physical nature), we also are capable of obtaining wisdom and knowledge. Note that I do not say we originate knowledge. All knowledge comes from God. We “discover” it when God reveals it to us.

Though there are no doubt many ways in which we as a race go astray and follow wrong ideas, there is some progression in human knowledge. I am very grateful that we live in an era in which we know about bacteria and viruses. I have a child who is alive today because God allowed a man (Frederick Banting) to discover insulin and its role in controlling blood sugar. Still, we will never know everything there is to know.

There are “Eureka” moments in human history in which God allows one person to dicsover some truth that no human had ever thought before. But these “discoveries” are not built on nothing. The discoverer already has some base of knowledge, some reason to be looking in the corner they are looking in or to be running the experiment they are running. And when they make that great discovery, we do not all have to make it again. The knowledge gets passed on and built on.

As we discussed last time, when we want to convey specific knowledge, we use words, whether oral or written. This use of langauge seems to be inherent in how we are made. We were created by God’s Word and it is how He, who created and knows our natures, communicates with us. When He chooses to communicate specific truths to us (special revelation as opposed to general revelation), He uses words.

And so we use words to communicate with one another. When we think of teaching, we often think of one person standing in front of a class and lecturing and this is certainly a valid method of conveying human knowledge. But the words and ideas that flow from mind to mind can come to us in various media. In our day and age, we can preserve a lecture and share it with others. This has not always been the case. More than anything else the written word has been the means of preserving and transmitting human knowledge. Last time, I made the case for books as the primary tool of learning and for particular kinds of books which we are calling “living books” (see this post).  Today I’d like to focus not so much on the books themselves as on the authors.

As I have argued many times before, God’s knowledge can come to us through non-Christian sources (though we should also expect more truth to come through Christians).  Our “teachers” — live or on paper– will come to us from many walks of life and with many different worldviews. There are no uninterpreted facts. Even in the most mundane, practical subjects, there is some level on which the author’s beliefs will be reflected in what he writes. Because this is so, we must be discerning in who we learn from.

How shall we choose our teachers? It is not simply a matter of Christian versus non-Christian.  There are times when we will have things to learn from non-Christians and there are Christians who will either be factually wrong or who will, despite a profession of faith, have a wrong outlook. When one is young, either chronologically or in one’s faith and knowledge, it is better to keep a narrower circle. There are books I would give to my teen that I would not give to my kindergartner (apart from content considerations of course). The more we know what we believe, the easier it will be to be discerning when we need to evaluate others’ beliefs.

At this stage of my life, I spend a lot of time in the car. I have taken up listening to theological podcasts for entertainment on long drives. While it is occasionally interesting to listen to someone I know is radically different from me, for the most part I pick people who are from the same end of the theological spectrum — i.e. reformed Christians, even other Presbyterians. But even within this realtively narrow corner of the spectrum, I hear things which make me wonder “Is that really true?” But there is one podcast that is done by members of my own (small) denomination including an ordained elder and the president of the seminary.  I’ve never met these men but I know their pedigrees and I know that they have the stamp of approval of a denomination I have already chosen to give allegience too. There might be things they say that I would disagree with but as I listen to them, I am more relaxed because I know that I can have some level of trust in what they say.

My point is this: I have made a broader choice, that I will cast my lot in with a particular church, so when my “teacher” is someone from that body, I can have a certain level of trust. I do not need to vet everything to the same degree I might otherwise. We all make similar choices. We rely on indidivual reputations but we might also look at broader criteria: where a person was educated, what church they belong to, etc. These are not infallible standards but, when well chosen, they are far better than no standards.

When I rely on my church’s seal of approval, I am in some sense accepting their recommendation. We live in a age of reviews. I would caution you to also vet those from whom you get recommendations. Quite often I see people post on homeschool message boards “What curriculum should I use?” If you are going to ask someone for recommendations, make sure they are someone who thinks like you, who has the same goals and standards. Knowing the subject area is a bonus too. Your pastor may be a wonderful, godly man but that doesn’t make him the best person to recommend a grammar curriculum.

To some extent we can develop relationships with particular authors, even those long dead. We become familiar with their thought, and we can develop a trust in them. When you have collected a body of trusted teachers, you do not need to do as much work each time.

While I don’t believe there are any truly secular subjects, there are areas in which I am going to be more careful. I don’t research the religious views of the authors of my children’s math and grammar books, but I am pretty careful of what theology they read and also of what science and history.

Though the primary intent is to give us discernment in religious matters, the Scriptures do offer some criteria for evaluating teachers:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30; ESV)

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.'” (Matt. 7:15-17; ESV)

These two passages give us two kinds of tests — Acts speaks to intellectual content and Matthew to practical outworkings.

In Acts we are told that false teachers draw men away from true doctrine. Good teachers, whether they themselves give glory to God or not, inspire us to praise. God’s general revelation should draw us to him (Rom 1:19-20). A teacher who knows his subject well and truly loves it can often lead us to see God in it even if he himself does not. I think, for example, of biologist E.O. Wilson (see this earlier book review). I do not agree with his belief in godless evolution, but when he speaks of his primary field, entymology, his delight in God’s smallest ceratures shines thorugh and though I am not big fan of insects myself, I grow to appreciate them and their Creator more.

Where Acts speaks to a teacher’s affect on us, Matthew addresses his own life. If I am reading a historian and find out that he was involved in eugenics programs, I am probably going to either drop his book or read it with a lot more discernment. I have blogged at length in the past about evolutuion and creation without coming to a solid conclusion. The one thing that has driven me away from Darwinian evolution in recent years more than anything else is  seeing how Darwin’s ideas played out in theology and philosophy. The consequences of the man’s ideas, in his own life and in those who took his ideas to their extreme conclusions, speak volumes about the ideas themselves (I discussed this a little in this earlier post).

If there is a general principle here it is: Be very careful who you let into your head. The rest are guidelines. There will not be one answer for all people. One may be able to read a book discerningly while another may be bothered by it. To sum up, the guidelines I am proposing are:

  • The abiity to discern grows with age and spiritual maturity. Those who are older, both chronologically and spiritually, will be able to make use of a wider variety of teachers.
  • Know what you believe. The better you are educated in your own worldview, the more you will be able to discern and avoid the fallacies in another’s.
  • Vet sources. Look at where a person was educated and what they believe.
  • Get to know your teachers. You can learn to trust particular sources.
  • Seek recommendations only from those you trust.
  • Look at outcomes in your own life. Does reading this person give you a greater sense of awe or does it pull you away from God and His truth?
  • Look at the outcomes in the teacher’s life and at how his ideas have played out through time.

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

 

 

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