The Christian School

99 replies [Last post]
Kevin T. Bauder
Offline
User
Joined: Sat, Jun 6 2009
Posts: 210

NickImage

Christian primary and secondary education (sometimes called “Christian Day School”) became popular among fundamentalists during the 1970s. While some have alleged that the Christian school movement was a response to racial integration,1 it was more likely a reaction against the increasingly vicious secularism of public education. For a generation, many Christian parents sent their children to Christian schools, even when the cost of tuition meant significant financial sacrifice.

Over the past decade, however, most Christian schools have begun to decline. Administrators speculate about the reasons, but at least a few seem pretty obvious. These are generalizations that will not hold in every instance. Certain tendencies, however, can be observed more often than not.

First, Christian schools have not typically produced a better academic product than public education. True, the average test scores from Christian school students are higher than those of public school students. That is partly because public schools are required to accept students (including special education students) whom Christian schools uniformly reject. Take the top ten percent of graduates from the typical Christian school, and compare them to the top ten percent of graduates from the typical public school, and you will likely find that the public school graduates are better prepared.

A second reason that Christian schools are in decline is because they do not generally produce a better quality of Christian. Granted, the environment of a Christian school does shield its students from the most brutal influences of the secular school environment, such as rampant drug use and open promiscuity. It also grants Christianity a normative status, so that a student’s faith is not overtly and constantly under attack. Nevertheless, graduates of Christian schools do not seem to be noticeably more spiritually minded than Christian graduates of public schools. The real test is in what happens to Christian school students after they graduate. How many of them are walking with the Lord five years later? The proportions do not seem markedly higher for Christian school alumni than for other Christians of the same age.

A third reason that Christian schools are declining is the massive amount of resources that they consume. Hiring qualified teachers and maintaining excellent facilities takes money—lots of it. Both parents and churches have grown fatigued by the constant expense, but somebody has to bear the cost. Though exceptions do exist, few churches are actually able to operate a Christian school at a profit. Budgets are often balanced on the backs of teachers, who are pitifully underpaid. Consequently, hiring qualified faculty becomes exponentially more difficult, with the result that unqualified individuals are sometimes placed in the classroom. This in turn affects the performance of the school, and declining performance only exacerbates the problem.

In view of the foregoing, does the Christian school still have a place? If so, what is the contribution that it should be expected to make? A preliminary answer to these questions can be deduced from two observations about the nature of the Christian faith.

First, Christianity is a religion of text, and Christians are people of the Book. True Christianity derives its entire faith and practice from the written Word of God. No authority is higher than the Scriptures.

Second, Christianity affirms the priesthood and soul-liberty of the believer. Among other things, this means individual Christians are responsible to know and understand the Scriptures for themselves. Spiritual authorities may help believers to interpret and apply the Scriptures rightly, but they may not take over the duty of Christians to know and obey the Word of God.

These two considerations have powerfully shaped Christian ministry. They have led to massive dissemination of the Christian Scriptures. No other ancient document was as widely copied as the Bible. No other book has been as widely translated, printed, and distributed. Throughout Christian history, believers have given their lives to protect, translate, and publish the Scriptures. This work has been paramount because Christianity is a religion of text.

Since Christianity is a religion of text, it can thrive only where believers are skilled readers. In order to know and apply the Scriptures for themselves, Christians must be able to read and understand with precision. This is not so much a matter of any special unction as it is a matter of good preparation. The tools for understanding the Bible are not significantly different from the tools for understanding any serious literature.

Biblical Christianity survives only where people read skillfully. Necessarily, then, every Christian church has an interest in ensuring that its members are skilled readers. Unskilled adults, however, usually resist efforts to foster new intellectual skills. This leaves children and teens as the target constituency for fostering the proficiencies that are necessary in order to prepare skillful readers.

What are those skills? The ordinary reading and understanding of serious literature requires, at minimum, a mastery of the disciplines known as the Trivium. Grammar deals with the way that words are connected so as to constitute communicative units. Logic examines the relationship between ideas to determine whether one idea necessarily arises from or gives rise to others. Rhetoric structures communicative units so that the connections between them are readily followed and grasped. The Trivium ought to be the core of a Christian school curriculum.

The standard interpretive method used by Protestant readers of the Bible is called “grammatico-historical.” The idea is that texts must be understood according to both their grammar and their historical location. Historical interpretation assumes and relies upon knowledge of history. To the Trivium, Christian schools must add history.

The Scriptures contain literature from a variety of forms and genres. Skilled readers must be comfortable dealing with diverse sorts of writing. This skill is gained only by broad exposure and wide reading. Literature has its place in the curriculum of the Christian schools.

For generations, Western Christians have relied upon public institutions to prepare their children. Over the past several decades, however, public education has de-emphasized literacy in favor of ideology. Unfortunately, Christian schools have spent much of their effort constructing and emphasizing an alternative ideology rather than fostering excellence in those skills without which Christianity cannot survive.

Does the Christian school have a future? The above observations imply that it does, if it takes seriously the work of preparing Christian readers. Most of a twelve-year curriculum could be derived from these considerations alone—and other considerations could be offered that would justify a fully liberal education in the arts and sciences.

Christian schools do have a future and they ought to be perpetuated. They have no reason for existence, however, if they merely offer “less of the same” thing that students can get in public institutions. Christian education ought to be different. The difference should not lie in making every course a stale tract for Christianity. The difference ought to lie in the gravity with which Christian educators take their task and in the thoughtfulness that they foster in their students.

Notes

1 For references see William J. Reese, “Soldiers of Christ in the Army of God: The Christian School Movement in America,” in Leslie Francis and David W. Lankshear (eds), Christian Perspectives on Church Schools (Leominster, England: 1993), 274.

Hymn 1:1
Behold the Glories of the Lamb
Isaac Watts (1674 –1748)

A new song to the Lamb that was slain. Rev. v.6-12

Behold the glories of the Lamb
Amidst His Father’s throne.
Prepare new honors for His Name,
And songs before unknown.

Let elders worship at His feet,
The Church adore around,
With vials full of odors sweet,
And harps of sweeter sound.

Those are the prayers of the saints,
And these the hymns they raise;
Jesus is kind to our complaints,
He loves to hear our praise.

Eternal Father, who shall look
Into Thy secret will?
Who but the Son should take that Book
And open every seal?

He shall fulfill Thy great decrees,
The Son deserves it well;
Lo, in His hand the sovereign keys
Of Heav’n, and death, and hell!

Now to the Lamb that once was slain
Be endless blessings paid;
Salvation, glory, joy remain
Forever on Thy head.

Thou hast redeemed our souls with blood,
Hast set the prisoner free;
Hast made us kings and priests to God,
And we shall reign with Thee.

The worlds of nature and of grace
Are put beneath Thy power;
Then shorten these delaying days,
And bring the promised hour.


This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, former president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN) and now serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central. Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Trivium

Strong point...

Quote:

Unfortunately, Christian schools have spent much of their effort constructing and emphasizing an alternative ideology rather than fostering excellence in those skills without which Christianity cannot survive.

Though I don't buy the "survive" part. Replace it with "thrive" and I agree completely.

FWIW, last year, my kids began attending a Christian school where the trivium is the core of the curriculum. We feel very blessed to be within almost-reasonable driving distance of an option like that.

Want to point out, tough, that another huge factor in the decline of the Christian school is homeschooling. Not equipped to put a number on it but I have to think that a large percentage of homeschooled kids would be in Christian schools if homeschooling was not an option (many are only homeschooled because a Christian school is not available nearby).

And the beauty of that is that the homeschool can teach the trivium. It's tougher for parents without that background to teach it to their kids, but you have the same problem in schools... teachers who want to teach classical rarely had a classical education themselves.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
Education
Quote:

A second reason that Christian schools are in decline is because they do not generally produce a better quality of Christian... Nevertheless, graduates of Christian schools do not seem to be noticeably more spiritually minded than Christian graduates of public schools. The real test is in what happens to Christian school students after they graduate. How many of them are walking with the Lord five years later? The proportions do not seem markedly higher for Christian school alumni than for other Christians of the same age.

That would be because the students are not necessarily Christians to begin with. Many, if not most schools, accept students based on the parents signing a SoF and agreeing to uphold the policies or the school, and only the custodial parent/guardian is required to sign.

Christian schools use Christian curriculum and have a Christian staff- that is why they can call themselves a Christian school. But they do not have a regenerate student body.

The problem with education overall is the modern assembly line/manufacturing model. Until we deal with the fact that the traditional classroom is a dinosaur, reform is pointless.

This applies to how Christian schools operate- quality materials and inspiring teachers need not be cost prohibitive. Many homeschoolers have learned that given quality materials, enthusiastic guidance, and minimal supervision, children can and often will become autodidactic.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Barry L.
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Aug 4 2009
Posts: 54
"First, Christian schools

"First, Christian schools have not typically produced a better academic product than public education. True, the average test scores from Christian school students are higher than those of public school students. That is partly because public schools are required to accept students (including special education students) whom Christian schools uniformly reject. Take the top ten percent of graduates from the typical Christian school, and compare them to the top ten percent of graduates from the typical public school, and you will likely find that the public school graduates are better prepared."

You could argue the academic gap between Christian and nonChristian is wider at the university level than at the day school level.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
I am a product of the

I am a product of the Chrsitian School. I was never in the top 10% of my class. I have 2 of my kids in public school and two in a LCMS school. My oldest will be a junior at the public school and is in the top 10%. I have to say that I know she is much more prepared then the average Christian school kid. There are good Christian Schools out there, but there are many sub-par ones. Dr. Bauder's idea here is good. We would consider that as an option if we could.

I was terrified of the public school, but know that God has done a great thing putting us in the mix of it. I have way more respect for public school teachers than I did before. They have to deal with things that I never put up with at the Christian Schools I worked at. I am not just dealing with the sins. I mean kids and parents who don't care. In my daughters freshman Bio class, there was a guy who did nothing but text. He was 18 and still taking freshman biology. The teacher would send him to the hall. He told him he would have a conference with his parents. The studen said, "Why? I am 18 and have my own apartment." Even among that, he is a great teacher and helped my daughter love science that year and that is not one of her passions. She always does well, but has only enjoyed it that one year.

I think many Christian Schools have focused so much on saying they are a better alternative instead of proving it. Following Dr. Bauder's advice will go along way in actually proving it

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3491
On "the massive amount of resources that they consume"

On "the massive amount of resources that they consume"

I hypothesize that these resources drain the pool of funds available for missions and that there is a link between the rise of the C/S movement and the ridiculous # of years it takes for a missionary candidate to raise support to get to the field.

Shaynus
Online
User
Joined: Mon, Mar 1 2010
Posts: 493
Church-run schools

I'm a product of Bob Jones Academy (from pre-school on. I got my BJU ID number at six weeks old!). I'm very blessed to have gone there, and wouldn't trade the experience. I went on to intern for the American Association of Christian Schools in college, so I believe in Christian education as one option open to parents (along with homeschooling and public school).

One thing that has bothered me is how church-run schools can distract from the church's main goals. I wish Christians had more of a vision to partner together as groups of churches to create Christian schools that aren't connected with churches directly. I wonder how many pastors out there with Christian schools, if asked in total privacy and honesty, saw their church school as a distraction.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 309
Regenerate Student Body

I have over 30 years experience as a Christian school teacher and administrator and this article has ignited a number of points of interest with me. I'll try to deal with one at a time.

Most schools find it extremely difficult to assure a regenerate student body. Requiring a signed profession of faith is no guarantee and adding a personal testimony does little to improve the situation. A pastoral recommendation was seldom a guarantee. Because of the problem being able to accurately "judge someone's salvation", some simply required that the student be amenable to discipline and the rules of the school.

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Shaynus
Online
User
Joined: Mon, Mar 1 2010
Posts: 493
Greater to the Lesser
Ron Bean wrote:

I have over 30 years experience as a Christian school teacher and administrator and this article has ignited a number of points of interest with me. I'll try to deal with one at a time.

Most schools find it extremely difficult to assure a regenerate student body. Requiring a signed profession of faith is no guarantee and adding a personal testimony does little to improve the situation. A pastoral recommendation was seldom a guarantee. Because of the problem being able to accurately "judge someone's salvation", some simply required that the student be amenable to discipline and the rules of the school.

Agreed. If churches already can't "assure" an entirely regenerate congregation, what makes them think they'll assue the professions of kids? It seems like a losing battle.

I liked the approach of BJA, which was to have self-described non-Christians able to come to school for up to a year, then move on if they can't say they're a Christian. But I don't think it was a requirement to attend that you had to say you were a Christian.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
Exactly
Ron Bean wrote:

Most schools find it extremely difficult to assure a regenerate student body. Requiring a signed profession of faith is no guarantee and adding a personal testimony does little to improve the situation. A pastoral recommendation was seldom a guarantee. Because of the problem being able to accurately "judge someone's salvation", some simply required that the student be amenable to discipline and the rules of the school.

Which means this

Quote:

the environment of a Christian school does shield its students from the most brutal influences of the secular school environment, such as rampant drug use and open promiscuity.

and

Quote:

It also grants Christianity a normative status, so that a student’s faith is not overtly and constantly under attack.

are not necessarily the case. When I went to Christian school, drug use was rampant, and fornication was taking place in every nook and cranny. The student body knew who was doing whom and how often. There were pregnancies and abortions, unbeknownst to the staff, usually because the parents were trying to preserve the status quo, so it wasn't uncommon for the girl who got an abortion last week to get a Christian Character Award next week.

That was 27 years ago. Do any of us think things have gotten better?

I have no objections to Christian schools as long as parents don't abdicate their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children, and the school doesn't attempt to make any guarantees about its role in forming a child's character or equipping them spiritually. That primarily happens in the home, but can be reinforced in a school with consistent values- which is where the attraction to a Christian education usually lies. IOW, the parent assumes that they won't have to do a significant amount of 'deprogramming' when their child gets home from school.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

dmicah
dmicah's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 15 2009
Posts: 117
Good Point
Quote:

I have no objections to Christian schools as long as parents don't abdicate their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children, and the school doesn't attempt to make any guarantees about its role in forming a child's character or equipping them spiritually. That primarily happens in the home, but can be reinforced in a school with consistent values- which is where the attraction to a Christian education usually lies. IOW, the parent assumes that they won't have to do a significant amount of 'deprogramming' when their child gets home from school.

good point, and could simultaneously be argued for public education

__________________

www.micahpattisall.com

SDHaynie
SDHaynie's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 32
Exactly!
dmicah wrote:
Quote:

I have no objections to Christian schools as long as parents don't abdicate their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children, and the school doesn't attempt to make any guarantees about its role in forming a child's character or equipping them spiritually. That primarily happens in the home, but can be reinforced in a school with consistent values- which is where the attraction to a Christian education usually lies. IOW, the parent assumes that they won't have to do a significant amount of 'deprogramming' when their child gets home from school.

good point, and could simultaneously be argued for public education

I taught in a Christian School for 10 years. It was a board run school which was primarily supported by 5 churches. The church that I attended (one of those five) had an interesting mix of Christian school students/families and teachers, public school students/families and teachers, and homeschool families. In each of these "groups" I saw wonderful, bright students with clear Christian testimonies and a deep understanding of the "Trivium," as well as a fair share of "scorners," "fools", and floaters . The difference? Parental involvement. When the parent took "their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children" seriously, the product was almost always top notch, regardless of where they went to school. When the parent abdicated his/her responsibility, the result was just as predictable in the negative direction.
While I agree with the main points of the essay, I agree wholeheartedly with Susan and Micah. Parental involvement is a major influence in a child's education. This is another point the Christian School must keep in mind if it is to succeed.

__________________

Shawn Haynie

JGHenderson
Offline
User
Joined: Sat, Jun 6 2009
Posts: 17
The Christian School

Somewhere in the Christian School discussion, I think the reason for the Chrisitian school and/or Christian
education should be considered. Years ago, I heard a leader quoting Proverbs 19:25, "Cease my son to hear
the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge." In our pursuit of Christian education for our
daughter, we always rejected "government" schools for the philosophies lurking in the classrooms. Christian
parents should understand the "molds" to which the child will be conformed. Joe Henderson

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Joe, It is possible to know

Joe,
It is possible to know follow the Word and put ones kids in public schools.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
JGHenderson wrote:Somewhere
JGHenderson wrote:

Somewhere in the Christian School discussion, I think the reason for the Chrisitian school and/or Christian
education should be considered. Years ago, I heard a leader quoting Proverbs 19:25, "Cease my son to hear
the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge."

I think KJV has the grammar wrong here, though that rendering is not impossible.
Some alternatives:

Prov 19:27 NKJV 27 Cease listening to instruction, my son, And you will stray from the words of knowledge. (ESV, NASB virtually identical)
Prov 19:27 NIV Stop listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge.

(Interestingly, Keil & Delitzsch say it translates more like "Cease from hearing instruction if you are going to depart form the words of knowledge." That is, you might as well quit learning if you're not going to use it.)

All the same, though I try not to be judgmental, I never have understood why we'd want to educate kids in an anti-Christian context when we could do it in a Christian one. Worldviews are more caught than taught. I've seen parents successfully see to it that their kids "catch" the Christian worldview while being educated in a mostly antichristian one, but it's hard for me to understand why this is worth attempting (given the available alternatives).

I'm heavily biased, though. I attended Christian schools every year after 1st grade. The experience wasn't always positive, but overall it was. It's true that many of my classmates are not living for the Lord now. The percentage is better than that of the local high school, though! The elementary school I attended was especially strong in grammar... and I'm grateful for that just about every day.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Parental mandate . . . . . . . .
rogercarlson wrote:

Joe,
It is possible to know follow the Word and put ones kids in public schools.

Roger, would you agree that the closest thing to Scriptural mandate for fathers is ". . . bring [your children] up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4)." Although the application of this is not specified, would you say the PS or the Christian school would more likely help you obey this command? What do you think?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
More important than worldviews . . . . . . .
Aaron Blumer wrote:

All the same, though I try not to be judgmental, I never have understood why we'd want to educate kids in an anti-Christian context when we could do it in a Christian one. Worldviews are more caught than taught. I've seen parents successfully see to it that their kids "catch" the Christian worldview while being educated in a mostly antichristian one, but it's hard for me to understand why this is worth attempting (given the available alternatives).

I'm heavily biased, though. I attended Christian schools every year after 1st grade. The experience wasn't always positive, but overall it was. It's true that many of my classmates are not living for the Lord now. The percentage is better than that of the local high school, though! The elementary school I attended was especially strong in grammar... and I'm grateful for that just about every day.

Although worldview is important, it is not the only, or even the main argument for Christian education. Depending on theological persuasion, there are many Christian worldviews, not just THE Christian worldview, out there.

However, a more important matter, IMHO, is the personality development of the child. Children develop their personalities by imitation and patterning the personalities of significant others. And teachers are significant others rivaling the significance of the parents. Now, why would Christian parents be willing to place their children under teachers who may or may not be saved? Their children may be replicating the personalities of unbelievers. Attitudes, behaviors, etc. that make up the person are generally stable over the long-term. This is a more subtle influence than the overt teaching of a false worldview.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Whose responsibility?
Susan R wrote:
Ron Bean wrote:

Most schools find it extremely difficult to assure a regenerate student body. Requiring a signed profession of faith is no guarantee and adding a personal testimony does little to improve the situation. A pastoral recommendation was seldom a guarantee. Because of the problem being able to accurately "judge someone's salvation", some simply required that the student be amenable to discipline and the rules of the school.

Which means this

Quote:

the environment of a Christian school does shield its students from the most brutal influences of the secular school environment, such as rampant drug use and open promiscuity.

and

Quote:

It also grants Christianity a normative status, so that a student’s faith is not overtly and constantly under attack.

are not necessarily the case.

Susan, we don't disagree often but this is one time when we do. There are good Christian schools and poorly run Christian schools. Now, I don't care to discuss all the problems of the poorly run ones because their problem is that they just aren't doing what they ought. It's not that the concept is faulty. But, I must disagree with you in that Ron Bean's post is right-on for a well-run Christian school.

Quote:

When I went to Christian school, drug use was rampant, and fornication was taking place in every nook and cranny. The student body knew who was doing whom and how often. There were pregnancies and abortions, unbeknownst to the staff, usually because the parents were trying to preserve the status quo, so it wasn't uncommon for the girl who got an abortion last week to get a Christian Character Award next week.

Well, whose fault is this? The parents! Unless the drug use and fornication occurred on campus or under school auspices. Christians schools are not the guarantors of students' spirituality, moral purity, or freedom from drugs. This is the parents' responsibility. However, no Christian school worth its salt will knowingly tolerate these things.

Quote:

That was 27 years ago. Do any of us think things have gotten better?

YES! I can quickly name several schools where your description is totally off-base. However, there are schools still like this. We must remember that around 30 years ago or more, many of the students, especially high school, were essentially products of public schools. Christian schools had their tremendous growth spurt due to the sexual revolution, drug culture, etc. of the 1960-70's. There were problems due to students having already been exposed to these vices before matriculating at Christian schools. Now, it appears that majority of Christian school students have been there long-term.

A large problem today, though, are the parents who attend church and send their kids to a Christian school meanwhile allowing their kids to run indiscriminately with a worldly crowd, go to teen clubs, imbibe the world's music, standards, media, and dress, hang out unsupervised at the mall
on the weekends, etc . On Monday morning, these kids bring the world and PS into the Christian school classroom.

Quote:

I have no objections to Christian schools as long as parents don't abdicate their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children, and the school doesn't attempt to make any guarantees about its role in forming a child's character or equipping them spiritually. That primarily happens in the home, but can be reinforced in a school with consistent values- which is where the attraction to a Christian education usually lies. IOW, the parent assumes that they won't have to do a significant amount of 'deprogramming' when their child gets home from school.

Even the best home cannot guarantee a child's character or behavior either. There are very good families having three kids with shining spiritual lights and serving God while the fourth growing up in the same home is living a life of sin and wickedness. This is not what Christian education is all about. It's not about measurable results, because no one can produce spiritual results except God but it is about our faithfulness as parents and teachers in teaching the Word of God by mouth and example. We plant, water, and fertilize but God gives the increase.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Influences are not determinate . . . . . . .
SDHaynie wrote:

I taught in a Christian School for 10 years. It was a board run school which was primarily supported by 5 churches. The church that I attended (one of those five) had an interesting mix of Christian school students/families and teachers, public school students/families and teachers, and homeschool families. In each of these "groups" I saw wonderful, bright students with clear Christian testimonies and a deep understanding of the "Trivium," as well as a fair share of "scorners," "fools", and floaters . The difference? Parental involvement. When the parent took "their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children" seriously, the product was almost always top notch, regardless of where they went to school. When the parent abdicated his/her responsibility, the result was just as predictable in the negative direction.
While I agree with the main points of the essay, I agree wholeheartedly with Susan and Micah. Parental involvement is a major influence in a child's education. This is another point the Christian School must keep in mind if it is to succeed.[emphasis added]

Whereas parental involvement is a great influence, it is not a necessarily a determinate factor. Great parents, who are heavily involved, sometimes have rebellious and wayward children that turn out badly. On the other hand, kids coming from a terrible family situation with almost no family support often are great students who go on to serve God.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Roland, Honestly it

Roland,

Honestly it depends....Where I live, the closest Christian school that you would be comfortable is over 50 miles away. So that isnt even a choice that I have. Also, I think it is important to note that I was in Christian School all the way through. In my freshman preacher boys class at BJ, Shanes dad asked how many of us came from public and Christian school...very few homeschoolers back then...and it was about 60% from public school.

Aaron,

We did home school for a time. Then the Lord gave us our 4th child with autism. We didnt know he had it...but we knew something was wrong...my wife was going nuts homeschooling and careing for him...I came home one day at lunch and said we had to do something different.....we found th LCMS school that only went to 8th grade....thus why our daughter is at the high school...our youngest needs to be in public school...because like Bauder said...most Christian schools are not equipped to handle special needs kids....Some even dont acknowledge autism

We put our kids in PS, because God sovereignly made that our only choice....it is difficult, but in some areas it is actually easier.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Roland, Wayward kids come

Roland,

Wayward kids come out of Christian School all the time as well!

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Competing factor . . . . .
dmicah wrote:
Quote:

I have no objections to Christian schools as long as parents don't abdicate their responsibility to educate, disciple, and train their children, and the school doesn't attempt to make any guarantees about its role in forming a child's character or equipping them spiritually. That primarily happens in the home, but can be reinforced in a school with consistent values- which is where the attraction to a Christian education usually lies. IOW, the parent assumes that they won't have to do a significant amount of 'deprogramming' when their child gets home from school.

good point, and could simultaneously be argued for public education

Really? I don't see how. Public education, which is secular by public policy, is a competing factor for anything Biblical or theological. Public education is not just non-Christian but it is anti-Christian by teaching a competing worldview, which is necessarily secular by public policy. So, how can a parent obey the mandate to " . . . bring [his children] up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4)" and subject them to a continual teaching of an opposing belief system. Would you send your children to a Muslim school? Hindu school? Buddhist school? Communist school? If not, why to a public school that is every bit as antithetical to Christianity as any of the above? Is it enough to teach Christianity and the Word of God at home and send them to a Buddhist school?

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
One other thing....I know a

One other thing....I know a guy who got the Christian Character award 4 years in a row at a Christian school...He was a asistant prayer captain as a sophomore...prayer captain as a Jr and sr...chaplain of soceity and still unsaved. That was me...i was a good pharisee but I was not saved by God's grace until I was a Senior at BJU

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Men, women, and kids are sinner . . . . . .
rogercarlson wrote:

Roland,

Wayward kids come out of Christian School all the time as well!

Of course! You have them in your church too whether home-schooled, public school, or Christian school. In fact, don't you have some wayward adult church members? And these are KIDS! Regardless of what R. J. Rushdoony with his Post-millennial views or others have intimated in their Christian school philosophies, I do not share their beliefs. As I stated, Christian schools are NOT guarantors of students' spirituality, morality, etc. This old shoe has grown rather worn and thin. The problem is that people are asking the wrong questions and trying to set the wrong standard for judging success. Like the Apostle Paul advised, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God (1 Corinthians 4:5)." In fact, 1 Corinthians 4 is very applicable and instructive in this whole matter.

I've seen wayward Christian school kids become godly adults with a zeal for serving and honoring God. By the same token, I've seen exemplary Christian school kids who turned to a life of sin and wickedness as adults. Not everyone who receives the Word bears fruit. Christ explained it in Mark 4.

Quote:

"Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred (Mark 4:3-20)."

In Christian education, whether college or K-12, the standard is whether we have been faithful in sowing.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Yeah . . . . and preachers too!
rogercarlson wrote:

One other thing....I know a guy who got the Christian Character award 4 years in a row at a Christian school...He was a asistant prayer captain as a sophomore...prayer captain as a Jr and sr...chaplain of soceity and still unsaved. That was me...i was a good pharisee but I was not saved by God's grace until I was a Senior at BJU

Yeah, I know . . . heard of this before . . . heard of preachers being saved . . . but what does this have to do with Christian schools? No one, at least me, is arguing these points against you, Roger. This has nothing to do with the viability and need for Christian schools. Our purpose is not to produce a certain model student; that's akin to classical humanistic views. Our purpose is to faithfully preach and teach the Word for the Holy Spirit can to deal with the student's heart and bring him or her to faith in Christ and begin molding him or her into Christ-likeness. The results are out of our hands. It is God's doing!

Are you going to resign your pulpit and disband your church because a deacon is having an affair with the pianist, the treasurer has embezzled $10,000, and the your head usher left his wife this week? No, you're going to stay on the job and continue to preach the Word. In the same way, the Christian school staff is still going to be faithful in their ministry and obedience to God even if the girl with the Christian Character Award is pregnant. After all, a Christian Character Award is simply a recognition of observable traits that are considered positive characteristics of good Christian character--it is NOT about spirituality, which is not observable. This does not negate the value of Christian education.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 309
Academic Standards

What if parents ask, "Do your teachers have degrees in their teaching fields?"
How many schools have math, science and foreign language majors on their faculty?
How many would replace their current history teacher with a history major if they had the opportunity?

And while we're asking questions; how many men does your school have as faculty to serve as role models for young men?

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Roland, I was responding to

Roland,
I was responding to your statements that indicated there was no Biblical justification for sending kids to public school. I am not anti Christian education. I am saying that for some,public school is the beat option. It is for us with two of our kids and if God keeps us here will be for all 4. I am resting in God's plan for us.

Do my kids have battles Christian school kids don't? Yes. But they also have privileges. My oldest daughter has respect of her peers. They know her stand and many admire it

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Roland, Can you really deny

Roland,

Can you really deny Bauders critique? He is not anti..just trying to make the movement better

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
rogercarlson wrote: Roland,
rogercarlson wrote:

Roland,

Can you really deny Bauders critique? He is not anti..just trying to make the movement better

Wow, Roger, I really hate to get into this. Honestly, yes, I disagree with some points that I will be addressing later. Let's just leave it at that.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
I look forward to you airing

I look forward to you airing your disagreement. It is actually what the thread is about. But as someone who has seen every aspect of all types of education, my experience agrees with his views. I have found them to be accurate.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Are Christian schools better academically?
Bauder wrote:

First, Christian schools have not typically produced a better academic product than public education.

What is the basis for this statement? Achievement test scores? College performance?

Quote:

True, the average test scores from Christian school students are higher than those of public school students.

This would contradict the previous statement. After all, it is academic achievement that tests measure. How else do you propose to measure "academic product?"They do NOT measure other factors in determining later success such as personality, drive, ambition, independent learning, study skills, goal orientation, etc.

Quote:

That is partly because public schools are required to accept students (including special education students) whom Christian schools uniformly reject.

This is a red herring. Public schools do not test their special needs students with the general school population. Furthermore, although many Christian day schools have cut-off entrance test scores, my last school with no entrance tests and a 14% students qualifying for some special needs (same percentage as PS) averaged 88%ile to 92%ile using the group (school) norms of the Standford Achievement Test for a decade. What is perhaps more indicative of academic achievement and quality of instruction is that students scored at a higher percentile in their achievement tests than their mental ability test taken concurrently.

Quote:

Take the top ten percent of graduates from the typical Christian school, and compare them to the top ten percent of graduates from the typical public school, and you will likely find that the public school graduates are better prepared.

Well, Dr. Bauder, how do you propose to make a value comparison of academics. Standardized testing? You've already tossed that with a disclaimer. College performance? Whereas subsequent academic performance in college seems to be a valid comparison, it really is not. After all, there are more complex factors in college success than simply academic achievement, which is what we're discussing. In college, you have a mix of backgrounds from different geographic regions. It would not be valid to compare SC Christian school students to public school students from MI or NJ. Also, you have a different type of learning and social structure in college. Many Christian school students may have problems adjusting to the lack of structure or direction but this may be a family phenomenon, as well, tracking with more structured families, who would choose a Christian school, over looser familial arrangements. Yet, none of the factors or others can be labelled academic.

On the positive side, I can attest to many students from Christian schools excelling at West Point, NCSU, UNC-Chapel Hill, etc.

In sum, Dr. Bauder's analysis and conclusion is similar to some of the accepted wisdom making the rounds in a self-justifying circle but it lacks both accuracy and depth. I cannot agree.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Commitment?
Bauder wrote:

A third reason that Christian schools are declining is the massive amount of resources that they consume. Hiring qualified teachers and maintaining excellent facilities takes money—lots of it. Both parents and churches have grown fatigued by the constant expense, but somebody has to bear the cost. Though exceptions do exist, few churches are actually able to operate a Christian school at a profit. Budgets are often balanced on the backs of teachers, who are pitifully underpaid. Consequently, hiring qualified faculty becomes exponentially more difficult, with the result that unqualified individuals are sometimes placed in the classroom. This in turn affects the performance of the school, and declining performance only exacerbates the problem.

Finances have always been an obstacle for the Christian school (see Bauder quote below). A part of the problem is that we try run Christian schools like the PS, at a deficit. My own opinion is that a school should live within its tuition. With good management, Christian schools can be run profitably. I know of a Christian school that for fourteen years, except for possibly two years, operated at an annual profit ($114,000 one year), built and paid for three buildings, and increased the faculty's salaries and benefits to one of the best packages in the state. I think most good Christian schools are in better financial shape today than 30 years ago when they were meeting in Sunday School rooms and practicing basketball on the blacktop.

The main problem today, although the economy is flagging, is commitment. In the early days of the Christian school movement, pastors were enthusiastic and promoted Christian education. Today, you find much less support among the leaders; there are more naysayers than supporters. Also, there was the tremendous social upheaval and counter-culture movement of the 1960-1970's. This gave an urgency to getting our kids out of danger and into the safe haven of a Christian school. Dr. Bauder rightly observed that the growth of the Christian school movement was a [quote}reaction against the increasingly vicious secularism of public education. For a generation, many Christian parents sent their children to Christian schools, even when the cost of tuition meant significant financial sacrifice.Today, we have adopted or at least have become acclimated to those things that were so threatening. Being at ease with our culture, it is easy to lose that original commitment and drift back to the PS where the cost is cheaper.

The major problem facing Christian schools today is a lack of commitment leading to a diminished enrollment that ultimately results in financial problems.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Unsound reasoning . . . . . .
Bauder wrote:

A second reason that Christian schools are in decline is because they do not generally produce a better quality of Christian.

How do you know? Attendance at a Christian college? Not necessarily. Does church attendance "generally produce a better quality of Christian?" Are there spiritual failures among the faithful attenders?

Is to produce a model Christian student the standard for judging a Christian school? Or, should it be more about faithfully teaching the Word by word and deed? Is not Mark 4:3-20 instructive for us in this matter?

And at what point do you make this assessment? Upon graduation? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 25 years? I knew exemplary students 25 years ago who are living sinfully today but I also knew many with little or no spiritual interest upon graduation who are zealously serving God today. Again, Paul's advice in I Corinthians 4:5 is wise here.

One of the fallacies of the early Christian school movement is that many pastors bought into R. J. Rushdoony's Post-millennial optimism and were disappointed that it didn't pan out.

Quote:

Granted, the environment of a Christian school does shield its students from the most brutal influences of the secular school environment, such as rampant drug use and open promiscuity.

Sounds like a compelling argument to me.

Quote:

It also grants Christianity a normative status, so that a student’s faith is not overtly and constantly under attack.

Pretty conclusive case for Christian schools, I think.

Quote:

Nevertheless, graduates of Christian schools do not seem to be noticeably more spiritually minded than Christian graduates of public schools.

Well this raises a lot of questions.

  1. How does one measure spirituality? What is the test? Behavior?
  2. How can one differentiate between conformity to expectations and true spirituality?
  3. How many more students, who attended PS, would be walking with the Lord if they had attended Christian schools? Are you saying there are no casualties lost to PS?
  4. How many graduates of Christian schools, who are nominal Christians, would have been lost to secularism in public schools?
  5. Would Christian school graduates have been better off or more spiritual if they had attended PS? How do you know?
  6. Are you comparing apples with apples. Try this possibility for size. The Christian graduates of PS are the survivors and are the best of PS whereas many of the Christian graduates of Christian schools are the nominal ones who would have been casualties in the PS. Thus, the nominal ones are compared with the best.
Quote:

The real test is in what happens to Christian school students after they graduate. How many of them are walking with the Lord five years later? The proportions do not seem markedly higher for Christian school alumni than for other Christians of the same age.

I don't think so. The real test is the Judgment Seat of Christ. (See argument above) I suggest that we follow Paul's advice.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Parallel between teaching and preaching . . . .

There is a lot of specious reasoning behind some of our ideas here. The sum of the arguments, including Dr. Bauder, is that Christian schools fail to produce the expected results. To focus on results is a pragmatic thing. As Bible believers, our question should be: "What is right?" Is the Christian school right? Is it being faithful in the practice of our Biblical beliefs. This is the proper basis for assessment. It is NOT about what is popular, convenient, successful, etc.

Perhaps drawing a parallel between preaching and teaching will help us understand this question. Not every sinner responds when the Gospel is faithfully preached. Do we fault the preacher? Not every church member lives on Monday according to the sermon he heard preached on Sunday. Is it the preacher's fault? The church's? Likewise, not every student or graduate responds and practices what he or she has been taught? Is it the teacher's fault? The school's? According to Christ, this is the difference between the wise and the foolish person (Matthew 7:24-27).

The question, then, is NOT about the results but it is about our faithfulness in preaching and teaching the Word.
God produces the results (I Corinthians 3:6).

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
Not disagreeing
RPittman wrote:
Susan R wrote:

When I went to Christian school, drug use was rampant, and fornication was taking place in every nook and cranny. The student body knew who was doing whom and how often. There were pregnancies and abortions, unbeknownst to the staff, usually because the parents were trying to preserve the status quo, so it wasn't uncommon for the girl who got an abortion last week to get a Christian Character Award next week.

Well, whose fault is this? The parents! Unless the drug use and fornication occurred on campus or under school auspices. Christians schools are not the guarantors of students' spirituality, moral purity, or freedom from drugs. This is the parents' responsibility. However, no Christian school worth its salt will knowingly tolerate these things.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I've said that character training and education rests primarily with the parents. And it's true that there are no guarantees, because children grow into independent adults who make their own choices, regardless of the tools that they've been given by parents, church, school, etc...

My whole point was that it is a mistake to assume that a Christian school is full of Christians. The staff and curriculum may be Christian, but a significant percentage of the student body is likely not, and since traditional schooling lends itself to peer dependency, it is also highly likely that more influence will be exerted and absorbed by other students than by staff. It takes a very, VERY vigilant and involved parent to counteract this tendency.

RPittman wrote:

I can quickly name several schools where your description is totally off-base. However, there are schools still like this. We must remember that around 30 years ago or more, many of the students, especially high school, were essentially products of public schools. Christian schools had their tremendous growth spurt due to the sexual revolution, drug culture, etc. of the 1960-70's. There were problems due to students having already been exposed to these vices before matriculating at Christian schools. Now, it appears that majority of Christian school students have been there long-term.

A large problem today, though, are the parents who attend church and send their kids to a Christian school meanwhile allowing their kids to run indiscriminately with a worldly crowd, go to teen clubs, imbibe the world's music, standards, media, and dress, hang out unsupervised at the mall on the weekends, etc . On Monday morning, these kids bring the world and PS into the Christian school classroom.

Both of us only have anecdotal evidence to support our conclusions. But- the school I attended was considered to be the most conservative school in the area, as well as excellent academically. It was, by all the standards that most people associate with a well run school, a well run school.

Humorous (or not) anecdote- to be a cheerleader, athlete, etc... you had to agree to even more restrictive rules than what applied to the rest of the student body. So (not only being a cheerleader but on the speech team) one day I'm supposed to be studying for debate at the local library, but I grabbed a friend and we went to the Mall instead to see Flashdance. While I was there, we ran into a couple of guys on the basketball team, so we went to the movie together. When I got back, the principal met me and my girlfriend at the door and asked us where we'd been. I told him I went to the Mall to see Flashdance. He laughed, and said "No, really- where were you?" So I told him I went to the library to study for debate. He believed the lie. He didn't believe me when I told him the truth, and I knew he wouldn't, because I was known for being a 'good kid'.

I said that to say this- kids are not stupid, and adults who think they are, are stupid.

So- how do these schools that you can quickly name maintain moral and ethical purity in their student body, and in the lives of the parents? What policies does the school have in place to prevent the kids from bringing the world into the classroom, and how do they enforce it? Maybe what I should ask instead is- "What is a "well run" school?"- or we are going to be talking past each other, which we are well on our way to doing already.

RPittman wrote:

Even the best home cannot guarantee a child's character or behavior either. There are very good families having three kids with shining spiritual lights and serving God while the fourth growing up in the same home is living a life of sin and wickedness. This is not what Christian education is all about. It's not about measurable results, because no one can produce spiritual results except God but it is about our faithfulness as parents and teachers in teaching the Word of God by mouth and example. We plant, water, and fertilize but God gives the increase.

I agree- I think a huge problem with Christian schools and with the parents who send their kids to one is ANY assumption that certain methods and policies will guarantee spiritual and moral results. Certain methods and policies are wise, preferable, prudent, etc... but we can never, NEVER rest on the idea that these rules are all the fences we need.

I'm not going to address the public school vs. Christian school question- it's too far, IMO, off the topic of this thread.

Christian schools are in a unique position to toss out everything that is wrong with traditional schooling and, without gov't control and intervention, do a much better job at partnering with parents, presenting solid information with a Christian worldview, and inspiring creativity and critical thinking. As long as Christian schools mimic public education, because "That's the way we do it, furthermore, that's the way we've always done it" (Harold Leake), they are not only going to have the problems that the federal system faces, but the additional headache of attempting to legislate spirituality.

Christian schools have a lot riding on the word "Christian" in their title, and I think they (generally) have trouble prioritizing the needs of the students over the 'testimony' of the school. Any time we operate with the good of the institution in mind while kicking children to the curb, we become spiritually worthless and IMO morally putrid.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Worldviews etc.
Quote:

Although worldview is important, it is not the only, or even the main argument for Christian education. Depending on theological persuasion, there are many Christian worldviews, not just THE Christian worldview, out there.

A worldview is not a comprehensive set beliefs about everything. It's a set of beliefs that forms a foundation or grid or framework (several metaphors work) for arranging your beliefs about everything. There is only one Christian worldview. Though people may differ some on how they define the fringes of it, a few differences does not comprise a different worldview, just a slight variation of the same one.
But this isn't really all that relevant to the topic except, I guess, in talking about what schools are good for vs. what church are home are best suited for.

On Bauder's assertion that academic product is not better from Christian schools (generally), he explains in the essay how the statistics work in his view. You declared this to be a "red herring," but that's not really a counter argument. His explanation is that the generally higher test scores among Christian school kids has to do with the fact that they do not have to deal with as broad a spectrum of test takers--including many that would come in at the very low end. Then he argues that the top x% in the typical Christian school roughly matches the top x% in the public school. The implication that is that he believes this should not be the case. Due to the larger and more ability-diverse student body in the public schools, the top tier of the Christian school ought to be much higher than the top tier of the public.

Of course, it's valid to question the stats here. I don't have that kind of data. I would not be surprised to find that he's right, though, because, as he points out later in the piece, most Christian schools have embraced a paradigm in which they respond to the ideological focus of the public schools by having an opposite ideological focus.
My own take on that is that too many Christian schools see themselves primarily as places to pursue sanctification rather than places to pursue education. But this is defeating because they are nowhere near as well equipped as church and home for the mission of sanctification (and the church and home tend to be less able to accomplish the goals of education).

So in the schools there is alot of preaching and alot of ideological repetition, etc., but not enough equipping with the disciplines of thought and communication. This is true of both public and most Christian schools, only the content of the preaching is different.
It would really be surprising if the academic results were not pretty much the same.

CPHurst
CPHurst's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
Posts: 119
I am a product

I went to 3 different Christian Schools by the time I graduated high school and I can say that all of what Bauder says is spot on with maybe one exception. One of the Christian schools I went to actually had pretty decent academics despite that fact that they did not use the trivium (and we wore uniforms there as well Wink ). The difference? They cost more to attend because they put the money into paying good qualified teachers. They were still underpaid compared to their public school counterparts but it was better than the 2 other schools I attended.

This brings us to the present. That better Christian school I attended is more than twice what it was when I was there 12 years ago. Bottom line is, good Christian education costs way too much these days for the average person. It is to the point that it can be considered a luxury like buying a bass boat or weekend Harley to ride except you have to pay for it every year.

We are homeschooling our kids and using Classical Conversations which is based on the trivium. This kind of schooling allows parents of lower incomes (who are willing to teach their kids themselves) to give their kids a good education for a fraction of the cost.

Even if Christian schools use the trivium that has only fixed the educational quality and not the cost. The whole model needs to change is more Christian children are going to get a good education.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Muddying the waters . . . . .

Once again, Aaron, you've managed to muddy the waters.

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Quote:

Although worldview is important, it is not the only, or even the main argument for Christian education. Depending on theological persuasion, there are many Christian worldviews, not just THE Christian worldview, out there.

A worldview is not a comprehensive set beliefs about everything. It's a set of beliefs that forms a foundation or grid or framework (several metaphors work) for arranging your beliefs about everything. There is only one Christian worldview. Though people may differ some on how they define the fringes of it, a few differences does not comprise a different worldview, just a slight variation of the same one.
But this isn't really all that relevant to the topic except, I guess, in talking about what schools are good for vs. what church are home are best suited for.

If I may quietly and kindly point out, worldview is not necessarily a naturally occurring phenomenon with an existence in reality. It is a theoretical construct, akin to Weltanschauung in rationalistic German philosophy, used by many pastors and Christians to unite, justify, and give intellectual credibility to their philosophical position. It is a philosophical concept pure and simple. As a model, it may be useful in explaining why people believe some things or act a certain way but it is not necessarily an all-encompassing principle. Furthermore, people often behave in gut-level emotional response to circumstances rather than acting on a set of beliefs. Human beings have a way of justifying and squaring their beliefs with what they want to do. Not to be overly cynical, but many people are not really consistent with what they say they believe.

Contrary to your assertion, there is no one Christian worldview anymore than there is one Christian philosophy of education. It is not a matter of a few minor differences around the edges. If you're talking of the so-called "theistic worldview" as the common denomination, it is so generalized that anyone believing in monotheism (i.e. Jewish, Mormon, JW, Muslim, etc.) could ascribe to it but it cannot be properly called Christian. If a Christian worldview exists as such, it is tied to one's theological view. To define a thing, there must be enough details to set apart what it is and what it is not.

From a psychological or learning point of view, worldview is a crock. One does not create another's worldview through intentional effort. It's more about the person and personality. What is described by the worldview concept is molded by the totality of life experience and one's response to it. The purpose of Christian education is not to create a Christian worldview, which some supporters have grasped as a support for their philosophy of Christian education; Christian education is to teach the precepts of the Word of God.

Quote:

On Bauder's assertion that academic product is not better from Christian schools (generally), he explains in the essay how the statistics work in his view. You declared this to be a "red herring," but that's not really a counter argument. His explanation is that the generally higher test scores among Christian school kids has to do with the fact that they do not have to deal with as broad a spectrum of test takers--including many that would come in at the very low end. Then he argues that the top x% in the typical Christian school roughly matches the top x% in the public school. The implication that is that he believes this should not be the case. Due to the larger and more ability-diverse student body in the public schools, the top tier of the Christian school ought to be much higher than the top tier of the public.

Of course, it's valid to question the stats here. I don't have that kind of data.

Dr. Bauder gave no data either, only an oft-quoted generalization. I do think he has not studied and does not understand statistics because his statements are a gloss.

Quote:

I would not be surprised to find that he's right, though, because, as he points out later in the piece, most Christian schools have embraced a paradigm in which they respond to the ideological focus of the public schools by having an opposite ideological focus.

What does this have to do with data? And you've just stated your prejudice without data. So, a prejudiced mind has little room for data.

Quote:

My own take on that is that too many Christian schools see themselves primarily as places to pursue sanctification rather than places to pursue education. But this is defeating because they are nowhere near as well equipped as church and home for the mission of sanctification (and the church and home tend to be less able to accomplish the goals of education).

Do you have any basis for saying this? Or, do you just like of having thought of these things?

Quote:

So in the schools there is alot of preaching and alot of ideological repetition, etc., but not enough equipping with the disciplines of thought and communication.

And exactly how do you propose to go about this?

Quote:

This is true of both public and most Christian schools, only the content of the preaching is different.
It would really be surprising if the academic results were not pretty much the same.

How do you measure academic results? Standardized testing. Academic achievement is not necessarily measured by other factors such as subsequent academic success, which is influenced by many other factors. Academic achievement is measured by tests. The best way of judging is to test all students with ability and achievement measures annually and plot the trends over several years. From the data I've seen (and I've reviewed a lot of it having done psychological/educational testing in both PS/Christian), Christian schools generally show achievement at or above ability levels whereas PS show many underachievers. Of course, this is only a generalization because there are academically poor Christian schools and good academic PS.

Also, PS and Christian schools generally differ in instructional styles. Structure and discipline are generally strong in Christian schools whereas it is generally more lax in PS. This is a valid and observable reason why it would be surprising if the academic results were the same.

CPHurst
CPHurst's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
Posts: 119
The School & the Homeschool

To piggy back on Aaron's statements about schools as a means of sanctification, I would like to say that Christians schools have taken on this task for two reasons.

, they are confused about the purpose of Christian education. Christian education is to teach kids a liberal education from a Christian perspective that sees all of the subjects as connected to God and show how God shapes and informs each of them.

[=2]

  • [/], as they have with the church, parents have given over their parental role as discipler of their children to the school. This sanctification mentality can be really seen when a Christian school tries to be a mission school to unsaved children but never actually evangelizes them. This is the experience I had in two of the three schools I went to. In my experience, the school becomes no better of an atmosphere than a public school. On the other hand, I have a teacher in our church who teaches at a mission Christian school and they have a lot of success with it. It is in GR, MI which may account for the success but maybe it can work in some places.

    If Christian schools could understand what their purpose is - to educate kids - then they might be more successful. If parents could understand their purpose - to disciple AND educate their kids - then they might be more successful as well.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Dr. Bauder supports Christian education . . . . .
    Bauder wrote:

    What are those skills? The ordinary reading and understanding of serious literature requires, at minimum, a mastery of the disciplines known as the Trivium. Grammar deals with the way that words are connected so as to constitute communicative units. Logic examines the relationship between ideas to determine whether one idea necessarily arises from or gives rise to others. Rhetoric structures communicative units so that the connections between them are readily followed and grasped. The Trivium ought to be the core of a Christian school curriculum.

    My previous posts critiquing Dr. Bauder's essay are NOT to be construed in any way as critical of the man or as questioning his support of Christian education. Both Dr. Bauder and I love and believe in the concept of Christian education. It is just that we take differing paths of getting there. Also, we differ on some of the goals and purposes. Given our differing theological perspectives and application of our views, this is NOT surprising and it is acceptable within the limits of Christian tolerance. Let Dr. Bauder pursue his interest but please allow me to follow my understanding without disparaging it as less than Christian. Even in Christian education, one size does not fit all.

    IMHO, the Trivium is NOT the salvation of Christian education. Given his personality and interests, I can understand why Dr. Bauder believes this. However, it does not work all across the spectrum. Here are a few quick reasons why I am opposed to the Trivium as the basis of the Christian school curriculum.

    1. The Trivium is based on the Greek-Latin concepts of classical humanism, not Christian principles.
    2. The Trivium developed under different circumstances and ideas that are not particularly adapted to the demands of today's digital age.
    3. The Trivium has a false foundation of learning based on repetition rather than a modern association concept.
    4. The Trivium embraces an outdated view of language.
    5. The Trivium is not equally suited to all students from varying socio-economic backgrounds.
    6. The Trivium is gaining popularity and experiencing a halo effect as almost all educational fads do in their beginning. With time, the failures will become more apparent. It is not equally successful everywhere.
    7. The Trivium is not a panacea anymore than programmed self-paced instruction, homeschooling, Christian schools, Traditional education (PCC), etc.

    In closing, I will argue that all teaching of children should be under the authority of the Church as inferred from Ephesians 4. The Christian school is a ministry of the church. K-12 education is a formative process, not career or professional training. Such education by its nature has an inherent moral and spiritual element that the secular PS cannot address. Furthermore, the Christian school cannot be judged by how its students respond to its teaching but it can only be judged by how faithful the school is in the teaching of the Word. One of the places where we went wrong in churches and resorted to gimmicks is when we began focusing more on the number of respondents or decisions than on faithfully preaching the Word. Then, we set out by human means to achieve the show of spiritual results. Now, we're doing the same with Christian schools.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Anecdotal stories . . . . . .
    CPHurst wrote:

    I went to 3 different Christian Schools by the time I graduated high school and I can say that all of what Bauder says is spot on with maybe one exception. One of the Christian schools I went to actually had pretty decent academics despite that fact that they did not use the trivium (and we wore uniforms there as well Wink ). The difference? They cost more to attend because they put the money into paying good qualified teachers. They were still underpaid compared to their public school counterparts but it was better than the 2 other schools I attended.

    This brings us to the present. That better Christian school I attended is more than twice what it was when I was there 12 years ago. Bottom line is, good Christian education costs way too much these days for the average person. It is to the point that it can be considered a luxury like buying a bass boat or weekend Harley to ride except you have to pay for it every year.

    We are homeschooling our kids and using Classical Conversations which is based on the trivium. This kind of schooling allows parents of lower incomes (who are willing to teach their kids themselves) to give their kids a good education for a fraction of the cost.

    Even if Christian schools use the trivium that has only fixed the educational quality and not the cost. The whole model needs to change is more Christian children are going to get a good education.

    Anecdotal stories abound on both sides of the question. It really boils down to one's likes or dislikes.

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Suggested Model?

    RPittman, are there any books or articles that you would recommend from your side and any that critique the classical model? I love to read on both sides of everything.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Is there a moral-spiritual element to education?
    CPHurst wrote:

    To piggy back on Aaron's statements about schools as a means of sanctification, I would like to say that Christians schools have taken on this task for two reasons.

    , they are confused about the purpose of Christian education. Christian education is to teach kids a liberal education from a Christian perspective that sees all of the subjects as connected to God and show how God shapes and informs each of them.

    [=2]

  • [/], as they have with the church, parents have given over their parental role as discipler of their children to the school. This sanctification mentality can be really seen when a Christian school tries to be a mission school to unsaved children but never actually evangelizes them. This is the experience I had in two of the three schools I went to. In my experience, the school becomes no better of an atmosphere than a public school. On the other hand, I have a teacher in our church who teaches at a mission Christian school and they have a lot of success with it. It is in GR, MI which may account for the success but maybe it can work in some places.

    If Christian schools could understand what their purpose is - to educate kids - then they might be more successful. If parents could understand their purpose - to disciple AND educate their kids - then they might be more successful as well.

    A so-called good education is no guarantee of success or happiness in life. Americans, who are infatuated with the idea of education, love to speak of a good education as if the thing of itself is worthy end. What is a good education? Is there inherent value in academics? Does not education, especially Christian education, have an essential moral and spiritual element? What do you mean "educate kids?" I thought that's what we've been doing for over fifty years.

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Sanctification Clarification

    To clarify my comments on Christian schools and sanctification I would say that there seems to be an imbalance in some schools to major on this at the expense of other goals. A truly Christian education will certainly include moral and spiritual aspects. But then again that is part of the value of the trivium - it seeks to show the spiritual nature of all of the disciplines as they fall under the rule of God as their creator. This is why public education will always fail and could never truly adopt this model or a similar model with the same goal.

    True, a good education will not make you successful but then again it can't. Seminary cannot make a guy a successful pastor - that's not its intent. It provides a person with the tools and guides them on how to use them once they are on their own with them. I, as well as many others, know people who have had full rides to great schools and then they flounder once they are done. They had a solid education and achieved good grades but end up far from their educational potential based on their educational background.

    This is the problem we have with seminaries and the church right now. Churches are expecting schools to do for the student and future pastor what they are not designed to do nor can do. School gives the tools and the church gives the context to use them as they gain them. The schools and the church must work together to educate the student in the area they are meant to. They can both dip into the other but they must major on what they are designed to do. The same goes for K-12 grade education.

    I suppose the definition of a good education depends on what you define as education and therefore what an educated person looks like.

    I think there is value in academics because God created everything and therefore it is worth knowing and studying. Again, this is part of the foundation for a Christian understanding of the trivium.

    Given your points on the downfalls of the trivium, do you think it can be reformed to be successful in today's world? I think its underlying goals are correct but that does not mean it cannot be tweaked to fit the contemporary setting better given the changes.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Lots published but . . . . .
    CPHurst wrote:

    RPittman, are there any books or articles that you would recommend from your side and any that critique the classical model? I love to read on both sides of everything.

    There are many books from various philosophical and theological perspectives but I'm not comfortable recommending any. R. J. Rushdoony has written much and was popular in the early days but he led us astray with his optimism predicated on his Post-millennial eschatology. He would be a strong supporter of the Trivium though. George Grant and other Reformed scholars have led in the revival of a classical education view. Some Christian colleges have used De Jong's Pattern of God's Truth, which is shot through with classical humanism. PCC swallowed Traditional education (not just traditional as in conventional) in a gulp failing to note that it grew out of classical humanism, not Biblical teachings. Christian education, I think, is more closely parallel to Hebrew educational ideals. It encompassed education of the whole person, not compartmentalizing intellectual and spiritual, but it viewed education with an essential, inseparable moral/spiritual element. Most Christian education practitioners have some eclectic view from any or all of the above and others with variations on the theme.

    Many of my acquaintances and associates in Christian education share some or most of my views but these people have been doers instead of writers. We talk about these things when we are together. They have been too busy, however, running successful Christian schools to articulate their ideas on paper. For the first time, I am scheduled to teach a philosophy of Christian education course in the fall semester. You can guess what I'm doing this summer. Perhaps I will share my notes . . . or write the book. LOL

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    RPittman, I could be wrong

    RPittman, I could be wrong but from what I have been told and have read the classical model as practiced by some Christians is designed to address the whole person. My wife and I are using the model used by Classical Conversations curriculum. Based on the explanation and from my interpretation of it, it is a holistic approach to education. This is what drew us to it.

    Yes I would love to see the class notes!

    Forgive my ignorance but where do you teach?

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    Not that complicated

    Worldview, as I use the term, is simply one's underlying philosophy, the lens through which you interpret life. It will either be based on Biblical principles- hence a Christian worldview- or it isn't. A Christian education certainly does entail teaching the precepts of the Word of God, but helping kids (and adults) think critically and interpret life, their experiences, culture, etc... properly, is the application of those principles.

    As for data comparing public and private schools (as far as academics go)- there are some studies, for what that's worth. I don't believe we can do much more than come to a few general conclusions based on stats and studies.
    Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling

    This website gives an overview of why most folks believe that private schools have an advantage over public schools-
    Private versus public- Some differences between public and private schools are obvious. But deciding what's right for your child entails shedding light on the subtle distinctions many parents ignore.

    Quote:

    Private school students typically score higher than public school students on standardized tests, but a 2006 study (pdf) by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which took into account students' backgrounds, told a different story.

    Public school students in fourth and eighth grade scored almost as well or better than their private school peers in reading and math, except that private school students excelled in eighth-grade reading.

    A Harvard University study (pdf) challenged the results, using the same data but different methods. Researchers found that private schools came out ahead in 11 of 12 comparisons of students.

    Earlier in 2006, an analysis of math scores by two University of Illinois researchers found similar results to the NCES study. "Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement" (pdf) states that "after accounting for the fact that private schools serve more advantaged populations, public schools perform remarkably well, often outscoring private and charter schools."

    But as this dissenting view from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's Education Gadfly newsletter shows, the debate over which kind of school does a better job is far from settled.

    Most folks believe intuitively that private schools should do better, based on admissions policies, the assumption of involved and invested parents, better socio-economic status, etc... but just because private schools are "schools of choice" doesn't mean they are more efficient or effective.

    CPHurst wrote:

    Bottom line is, good Christian education costs way too much these days for the average person. It is to the point that it can be considered a luxury like buying a bass boat or weekend Harley to ride except you have to pay for it every year.

    We are homeschooling our kids and using Classical Conversations which is based on the trivium. This kind of schooling allows parents of lower incomes (who are willing to teach their kids themselves) to give their kids a good education for a fraction of the cost.

    Isn't that just crazy? I mean, here we are fussing about how much a Christian education costs because of the overwhelming expense, but yet a low income family can homeschool very effectively at minimal cost. I'm spending about $120 this year on curriculum and supplies. For 3 kids.

    The traditional top heavy Chalk and Talk for the Sit and Git is not the best teaching/learning method. Credentials are not the best indicator of an effective teacher. Standarized testing is not an accurate measure of learning. These are Flat Earth paradigms that need to be turned on their heads if we want kids to flourish academically, and also affordably. Isn't it nice that we can have both.

    Homeschoolers have already thrown themselves on the education grenade. Perhaps its time for Christian schools to do the same. If it truly is a 'ministry', then why should the church limit 'ministering' to those who can afford it?

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Susan, as I mentioned earlier

    Susan, as I mentioned earlier my wife and I just started using the Classical Conversations material. In fact, my wife is going to be a tutor!

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Sundry thoughts . . . . . .
    CPHurst wrote:

    To clarify my comments on Christian schools and sanctification I would say that there seems to be an imbalance in some schools to major on this at the expense of other goals. A truly Christian education will certainly include moral and spiritual aspects. But then again that is part of the value of the trivium - it seeks to show the spiritual nature of all of the disciplines as they fall under the rule of God as their creator. This is why public education will always fail and could never truly adopt this model or a similar model with the same goal.

    The Holy Spirit, not man, is the primary agent of sanctification although He uses the efforts of men to further His work. Is the process of sanctification limited to just the church and home? Or, is it present in every aspect of life? Also, is not the Christian school an integral educational ministry of the church? If so, the sanctification aspect is an extension of the work of the church.

    Quote:

    True, a good education will not make you successful but then again it can't. Seminary cannot make a guy a successful pastor - that's not its intent. It provides a person with the tools and guides them on how to use them once they are on their own with them. I, as well as many others, know people who have had full rides to great schools and then they flounder once they are done. They had a solid education and achieved good grades but end up far from their educational potential based on their educational background.

    The idea of wisdom in Proverbs is more of a skill for life than intellectual abilities. Success in life is more about the person, character, and personality than academic achievement. I had a good Christian friend with a fourth grade education who was a multi-millionarie. On the other hand, I read of a top Harvard law school grad who became a street person. Peter Drucker, who was considered the top American business guru, said in an interview: "Every failure of top-level leadership is a matter of character, not ability. Let me repeat for emphasis, every failure of top leadership is a moral failing and not lack of ability or education."

    Quote:

    This is the problem we have with seminaries and the church right now. Churches are expecting schools to do for the student and future pastor what they are not designed to do nor can do. School gives the tools and the church gives the context to use them as they gain them. The schools and the church must work together to educate the student in the area they are meant to. They can both dip into the other but they must major on what they are designed to do. The same goes for K-12 grade education.

    Can we compartmentalize and separate these functions? This is Greek ideation of analysis and categorizing, not the Hebrew concept of addressing the whole integrated being. The Christian school is an integral part of the church and an extension of its ministry. Why shouldn't it do part of the same function?

    Quote:

    I suppose the definition of a good education depends on what you define as education and therefore what an educated person looks like.

    Education can be different things to different people. It depends on your goals and aims.

    Quote:

    I think there is value in academics because God created everything and therefore it is worth knowing and studying. Again, this is part of the foundation for a Christian understanding of the trivium.

    Academics is ideation, not a physical entity that God created. This sounds good and pious but it's not accurate. Every idea or concept cannot be attributed to God's creating. If so, did God create gambling? prostitution? Queer Theory? spiritualist seances? Dianetics?

    Quote:

    Given your points on the downfalls of the trivium, do you think it can be reformed to be successful in today's world? I think its underlying goals are correct but that does not mean it cannot be tweaked to fit the contemporary setting better given the changes.

    No, I think it is a waste of time and effort trying to reform the Trivium much like trying to rebuild a 1974 Ford Pinto into a modern BMW. Just buy a new BMW. To reform the Trivium, one must demolish some of the underlying premises that would destroy the Trivium. If there are some useful parts compatible with Biblical teaching, then we can eclectically incorporate them into a Bible-based view of Christian education.

    Probably my most basic and harsh criticism of the Trivium is that it tries to accomplish through academics and character development what only God can do. However, many Christian schools have tried this before and failed. We must change our thinking on this. Our duty is to be faithful in preaching and teaching the Word allowing God through the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts and lives of our students. As I've said repeatedly, and no one challenges, the results are not dependent upon us but upon God.

    As a postscript, one of the subtle points that we're missing in our discussion is that the spiritual element enhances and controls the academics, not that the academics enhances and develops the spiritual.

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    Trivium

    Classical education, or the Trivium Method, or the Principle Approach, or Charlotte Mason, or Montessori, or Waldorf, or my personal favorite- The Moore Formula- are just methods. I don't care who invented the vacuum cleaner- if the sucker works (haha, I made a pun!), I'm using it. There isn't anything inherently problematic with a Classical approach. It simply advocates that in early years, kids learn core skills and memorization of facts. As they get older and are more able to reason and process abstract thought, they are able to begin learning concepts that lead to higher math, vocabulary, and reading comprehension, and then move on to more complicated ideas and skills such as algebra, biology, physics, and debate.

    Most curriculum (BJU, Alpha Omega, A Beka) uses the Scope and Sequence method, which is much more of a manufacturing/assembly line model of education patterned after traditional public education. I think the technical term for that is 'icky'.

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    Compartmentalizing

    Bro. Pittman, it looks to me like you've got out a tweezers and are picking apart and compartmentalizing to the point where your rebuttals are nearly incomprehensible. I don't think he said what you think he said. I think you are arguing points he (CPHurst) did not make. I certainly don't see anyone trying to credit the Trivium with sanctifying powers. And I don't think saying that "I think there is value in academics because God created everything and therefore it is worth knowing and studying." means "Let's study gambling, prostitution, and gay sex". Seriously now. Could we give folks some credit for not being complete imbeciles and having to explain, clarify, re-explain, re-clarify... until we go shoehorn crazy?

    When we discuss ideas, one point at a time, we aren't attempting to separate and compartmentalize. I think we realize that the Holy Spirit leads and guides to Truth, but Holy Spirit doesn't teach us how to read in our language or change the oil in the car or file our income taxes.

    I'm going to say this as nicely as I can- my ultimate goal as a parent is to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But angels forfend, if one of my children does not come to know the Savior, they are still going to be law-abiding, productive citizens. I am going to teach them life skills, marketable skills, integrity, morality, and a butt-kickin' work ethic, with the Bible as the primary foundation of faith and practice. Their salvation is between them and God.

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Comments here and there . . . . .
    Susan R wrote:

    Worldview, as I use the term, is simply one's underlying philosophy, the lens through which you interpret life. It will either be based on Biblical principles- hence a Christian worldview- or it isn't. A Christian education certainly does entail teaching the precepts of the Word of God, but helping kids (and adults) think critically and interpret life, their experiences, culture, etc... properly, is the application of those principles.

    Worldview is a fine concept but is it reality and a determinate in life? Also, it is a very difficult thing to draw a circle around and define when you come right down to it. Do you really believe most folks have a coherent set of underlying principles? Most profess allegiance to group beliefs but practicing these beliefs often changes with circumstances. Even principled believers take a smorgasbord approach to Biblical principles.

    Quote:

    As for data comparing public and private schools (as far as academics go)- there are some studies, for what that's worth. I don't believe we can do much more than come to a few general conclusions based on stats and studies.
    Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling

    This website gives an overview of why most folks believe that private schools have an advantage over public schools-
    Private versus public- Some differences between public and private schools are obvious. But deciding what's right for your child entails shedding light on the subtle distinctions many parents ignore.

    Quote:

    Private school students typically score higher than public school students on standardized tests, but a 2006 study (pdf) by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which took into account students' backgrounds, told a different story.

    Many of these arguments are propogandra from the public school lobby that has mounted a tremendous campaign over the past half-decade.

    Quote:

    Public school students in fourth and eighth grade scored almost as well or better than their private school peers in reading and math, except that private school students excelled in eighth-grade reading.

    A Harvard University study (pdf) challenged the results, using the same data but different methods. Researchers found that private schools came out ahead in 11 of 12 comparisons of students.

    Earlier in 2006, an analysis of math scores by two University of Illinois researchers found similar results to the NCES study. "Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement" (pdf) states that "after accounting for the fact that private schools serve more advantaged populations, public schools perform remarkably well, often outscoring private and charter schools."

    But as this dissenting view from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's Education Gadfly newsletter shows, the debate over which kind of school does a better job is far from settled.

    Most folks believe intuitively that private schools should do better, based on admissions policies, the assumption of involved and invested parents, better socio-economic status, etc... but just because private schools are "schools of choice" doesn't mean they are more efficient or effective.

    Choice is much more personal and individual. Many people chose Christian schools for the wrong reasons.

    Quote:
    CPHurst wrote:

    Bottom line is, good Christian education costs way too much these days for the average person. It is to the point that it can be considered a luxury like buying a bass boat or weekend Harley to ride except you have to pay for it every year.

    We are homeschooling our kids and using Classical Conversations which is based on the trivium. This kind of schooling allows parents of lower incomes (who are willing to teach their kids themselves) to give their kids a good education for a fraction of the cost.

    Isn't that just crazy? I mean, here we are fussing about how much a Christian education costs because of the overwhelming expense, but yet a low income family can homeschool very effectively at minimal cost. I'm spending about $120 this year on curriculum and supplies. For 3 kids.

    Homeschooling is a very good choice for many, however, it can be a disaster for some as well. Not everyone can homeschool.

    Quote:

    The traditional top heavy Chalk and Talk for the Sit and Git is not the best teaching/learning method. Credentials are not the best indicator of an effective teacher.

    I've been saying this for decades. Good teachers possess an intangible element that cannot be measured by degrees, education, or credentials.

    Wrong! Standardized testing is an excellent measure of comparatitive academic achievement. It is not a predictor of behavior, success, character, beliefs, study skills, etc. which it cannot and does not purport to measure. The problem is that people don't understand and know how to interpret and delimit the tests.

    Quote:

    These are Flat Earth paradigms that need to be turned on their heads if we want kids to flourish academically, and also affordably. Isn't it nice that we can have both.

    First, I don't think standardized testing is one of the "Flat Earth paradigms." Second, life is a struggle and we will never achieve the stated ideals of homeschooling or Christian schooling. Homeschooling is NOT a panacea just as Christian schooling was not the arrival of the Millennium as some naively expected. I know some fantastic homeschooling success stories but I know more dismal homeschooling failures. Again, our mandate is not producing shining successes but it is faithfulness in our teaching.

    Quote:

    Homeschoolers have already thrown themselves on the education grenade. Perhaps its time for Christian schools to do the same.

    I really don't understand what you mean, Susan. Homeschooling has as many shortcomings as Christian schools. It is just that Christian schools are further into the cycle away from the halo effect.

    Quote:

    If it truly is a 'ministry', then why should the church limit 'ministering' to those who can afford it?

    I with you 100% on this one! It's basically a pragmatic issue--MONEY! They're not willing to sacrifice their pleasures, affluence, and comfort for the sake of an ideal. Now, where is that behavior controlling Christian worldview?

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Picking

    I think we could pick at each others points all day long and get no where. We are coming at this from different angels. However, I think if we were to sit down together we might be in more agreement than we realize...I could be wrong.

    However, I didnt say academics is a created thing. God created the stuff of which mathematics, science, literature/language, history, etc. study. These are categories of learning content. God created the earth and all that is in it and science studies it. God created numbers and logic and mathematics studies it. God acts in history with people and history studies it. As so on. This is not a pious thought but one that acknowledges reality. Studying these areas is useless if God is not part of it.

    Susan, I know the Scope & Sequence method is a little different but in its most basic form cant any educational model use the scope and sequence method to teach the material of a particular educational philosophy?

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    I ain't mad at nobody . . . . . :-)
    CPHurst wrote:

    I think we could pick at each others points all day long and get no where. We are coming at this from different angels. However, I think if we were to sit down together we might be in more agreement than we realize...I could be wrong.

    However, I didnt say academics is a created thing. God created the stuff of which mathematics, science, literature/language, history, etc. study. These are categories of learning content. God created the earth and all that is in it and science studies it. God created numbers and logic and mathematics studies it. God acts in history with people and history studies it. As so on. This is not a pious thought but one that acknowledges reality. Studying these areas is useless if God is not part of it.

    Susan, I know the Scope & Sequence method is a little different but in its most basic form cant any educational model use the scope and sequence method to teach the material of a particular educational philosophy?

    On the contrary, I think we do disagree frequently and largely. However, this is the beautiful thing about Christian liberty based in the priesthood of the believer, every man able to read the Scriptures for himself, and tolerance. I don't expect everyone to be cut from the same cookie cutter as myself. As I said, "I ain't mad at nobody."

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    S&S
    CPHurst wrote:

    Susan, I know the Scope & Sequence method is a little different but in its most basic form cant any educational model use the scope and sequence method to teach the material of a particular educational philosophy?

    Any educational model can employ a Scope & Sequence, if you are talking about an outline of what topics you will cover each year. But a traditional S&S is usually very general, and often introduces concepts before a typical student is equipped to make the information useful.

    For instance, of what real use it is to teach scientific principles to children who do not yet understand Algebra? Of course, I'm NOT saying they aren't to be exposed to science, creationism, etc... but you can't teach the principle of chemistry, weather, motion, etc without higher math. So basically, the problem with a traditional S&S is that it teaches kids a little bit of everything, and doesn't allow for specialization. Ditto with the accompanying grading system- children are not 'allowed' to excel in one area and struggle in another without being labeled as a 'failure'. Only in school are people essentially punished for specialization.

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Yes it seems that maybe the

    Yes it seems that maybe the S&S model is ok for higher education like college?

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Oh my . . . am I this obtuse?
    Susan R wrote:

    Bro. Pittman, it looks to me like you've got out a tweezers and are picking apart and compartmentalizing to the point where your rebuttals are nearly incomprehensible. I don't think he said what you think he said. I think you are arguing points he (CPHurst) did not make. I certainly don't see anyone trying to credit the Trivium with sanctifying powers.

    An underlying idea of classical humanism in the Trivium is that knowledge has virtue. If one buys into the Trivium, it is safe to assume he or she accepts this concept, I think.

    Quote:

    And I don't think saying that "I think there is value in academics because God created everything and therefore it is worth knowing and studying." means "Let's study gambling, prostitution, and gay sex". Seriously now. Could we give folks some credit for not being complete imbeciles and having to explain, clarify, re-explain, re-clarify... until we go shoehorn crazy?

    I don't think that I said or implied this. My point has been mangled and trivialized. I simply argued that one cannot justify "value in academics because God created everything." The concept of academics is ideation and God did not necessarily create all ideas or practices. If your argument is correct, then we can likewise say there is value in dianetics because God created it.

    Quote:

    When we discuss ideas, one point at a time, we aren't attempting to separate and compartmentalize.

    I was obviously speaking of the dichotomy of sacred and secular. For the believer, nothing is secular.

    Quote:

    I think we realize that the Holy Spirit leads and guides to Truth, but Holy Spirit doesn't teach us how to read in our language or change the oil in the car or file our income taxes.

    Knowing how to do the taxes is not enough without honesty.

    Quote:

    I'm going to say this as nicely as I can- my ultimate goal as a parent is to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But angels forfend, if one of my children does not come to know the Savior, they are still going to be law-abiding, productive citizens. I am going to teach them life skills, marketable skills, integrity, morality, and a butt-kickin' work ethic, with the Bible as the primary foundation of faith and practice. Their salvation is between them and God.

    I trust and pray that they do. However, individuals choose what they do. We have no assurance, other than the principle of Proverbs 22:6, that our kids will live what they're taught.

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    Yes, Bro. Roland, you are!

    RPittman wrote:

    My point has been mangled and trivialized.

    Yeah- tell me about it.

    CPHurst wrote:

    I think there is value in academics because God created everything and therefore it is worth knowing and studying. Again, this is part of the foundation for a Christian understanding of the trivium.

    RPittman wrote:

    Academics is ideation, not a physical entity that God created. This sounds good and pious but it's not accurate. Every idea or concept cannot be attributed to God's creating. If so, did God create gambling? prostitution? Queer Theory? spiritualist seances? Dianetics?

    I think in the context of this discussion and granting some intelligence to the average SI contributor, we can safely assume that that Bro. Hurst was not including everything that exists as something worth knowing and studying. We are talking about elementary and high school academics, and you have to go to college to study "The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie" or "The Philosophy of Star Trek".

    For many, if not most private schools and homeschoolers, the Trivium is a pattern, not a philosophy. You don't have to buy into the whole package, if there is a package. I don't have to be a wild-eyed Charlotte Mason or Maria Montessori disciple to take away ideas that have merit and use them.

    Susan R wrote:

    I think we realize that the Holy Spirit leads and guides to Truth, but Holy Spirit doesn't teach us how to read in our language or change the oil in the car or file our income taxes.

    RPittman wrote:

    Knowing how to do the taxes is not enough without honesty.

    You are doing it again. Quit it.

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    Not really
    CPHurst wrote:

    Yes it seems that maybe the S&S model is ok for higher education like college?

    A traditional S&S is aimed at spreading general knowledge about many subjects like a miser spreads peanut butter on bread. Just enough to cover, not enough to need a glass of milk to wash it down.

    College is a time for even more specialization, but it's expected at that level for a person to have an idea about what they want to 'do' with their lives. Of course, this doesn't explain the multitudes of young people who go to college to 'find themselves', but that's another thread.

    I see no reason to wait until the college level to allow kids to begin to specialize. I start from day one clearing a path for my kids to travel in the directions they show interest and ability. When my oldest son showed an aptitude for mechanics at 8 years old, we started picking weedeaters, lawnmowers, bikes, VCRs... off the curb on trash day, and made Seth a little workshop where he could take things apart. By the time he was 16, he was working full time for an HVAC company doing installs on his own. Did he read Shakespeare, Dickens, and take in variety of poetry? Did I teach him who Picasso and Monet were? Did he take foreign language lessons? Yes- he did the essentials in those subjects, but I didn't force him to spend time trying to excel in an area where he had no interest. That's practically educational heresy in our One Size Fits All society.

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    Ron Bean
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
    Posts: 309
    Are methods neutral?

    The discussion over trivium, scope and sequence, etc. reminded me of an old debate that was going on in CE years ago over whether methods were neutral. One man, using I Corinthians 3:10 as his proof text, denied their neutrality. One noted Christian textbook publisher said that any biology textbook that taught from the simple to the complex was espousing evolutionary theory.

    __________________

    "Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

    Susan R
    Susan R's picture
    Online
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3430
    Not neutral

    Some methods are mostly mechanical, others are inherently bound to a philosophy. All methods make assumptions though, and it's the assumptions that should be examined. But I can use the same method you do, and not be on board with the same assumptions.

    If one uses the model of classical education because they believe that children should be taught core skills and memorization of facts first, and in increasing order of difficulty introduce complicated concepts, critical thinking skills, and abstract thought processes, on what misguided philosophy would this be based? But- if someone was superglued to every facet of the Trivium because they felt it was ordained by God or contained the promise of a thoroughly educated and morally upstanding graduate, they are making a false assumption... or two.

    Most of the notions that provide a foundation for today's education system are hideously flawed, but have been adopted by the church with hardly a whimper. Just reading the history of public education and those who have influenced its progression- Immanuel Kant, Horace Mann, Rousseau, John Dewey, G. Stanley Hall... should give every Christian a bad case of hives. But look at how dedicated we are to romanticizing childhood, peer segregation, grade levels, and adolescence. What's the first question every adult asks a kid- "What grade are you in?" How do we organize Sunday School? Why do we have youth groups? Because we bought the pig in the poke without examining the underlying assumptions.

    On standardized testing- my kids have to test every year, and standardized tests are the dumbest thing to come down the pike since Chihuahuas in handbags. I don't care who creates or 'interprets' them, they are based on faulty assumptions. And if they can't measure critical thinking skills, research ability, and creativity, then save some trees (and me $75, two days of my time, and about $1.50 postage) and stop printing them.

    On homeschooling- I have never said that homeschooling is perfect, a panacea, Utopia, Paradise, or even Southern Georgia. What I have said is that HSers have essentially walked on ahead, regardless of the nay-sayers who cried "There be dragons, ya'll!" and on average we've proven that there is not necessarily a need for expensive textbooks, traditional classrooms, or the direct oversight of professional, certified educators.

    I think we've already settled on the fact that regardless of the method, there are no guarantees. After all, Jesus chose 12 and one of them became the son of perdition, for cryin' out loud. But there is what has been tried and tested and by all the evidence appears to work best, and then there is what hoovers like an F5 tornado regardless of how many times it has been reformed or had billions of dollars thrown at it.

    __________________

    Susan R

    Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
    "Like" my Facebook page

    Aaron Blumer
    Aaron Blumer's picture
    Offline
    UserEditorAdmin
    Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
    Posts: 5382
    Muddying waters
    RP wrote:

    Once again, Aaron, you've managed to muddy the waters....
    ...If I may quietly and kindly point out, worldview is not necessarily a naturally occurring phenomenon with an existence in reality. It is a theoretical construct, akin to Weltanschauung in rationalistic German philosophy...

    I'm muddying the waters? Laughing out loud

    Remind me again of when I said a worldview was "a naturally occurring phenomenon with an..." Well, of course it has an existence in reality. People have worldviews, ergo worldviews exist. There's no need to get all metaphysical. ... somebody might get the impression you don't actually have a point. Wink

    But I better stop. Roland, I think everybody's laughing at both of us. "The Aaron and Roland follies." Since they're not paying for the entertainment, I think I'll slink off the stage.

    CAWatson
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Sat, Jul 18 2009
    Posts: 22
    Trivium

    Wow, Brother Pittman, You've sure used a lot of grammar, "logic," and rhetoric in your responses. Perhaps now we should simply not learn the trivium because you have used the trivium to defeat the trivium. Kinda self defeating, isn't it?

    Charlie
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
    Posts: 862
    A Haiku

    Add chaos theory
    Mix cup of free radicals
    Makes batch of this thread

    On worldviews, I think Roland has a point. How do supposed ur-beliefs (beliefs behind belief) meaningfully differ from beliefs? And why is it that the same people who insist that worldviews operate on core principles actually wind up with some highly particular, robust systems of thought that are supposedly the necessary outcome of those worldviews? (I'm referring mainly here to some wingnut Reformed theonomists.) Although I think the concept of "worldview" did some useful things in the 20th century, such as reminding Christians that beliefs are based on other beliefs, and thus subject to "transcendent" or "transcendental" refutation (technically they're different), I don't know that the concept of worldview has much of a future. It tended toward a subject-object polarization that, at the very least, isn't fashionable in philosophy now. For one Christian philosopher who is moving beyond the concept, see James Smith, Desiring the Kingdom.

    __________________

    My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

    Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Learning "logic" . . . . .
    CAWatson wrote:

    Wow, Brother Pittman, You've sure used a lot of grammar, "logic," and rhetoric in your responses. Perhaps now we should simply not learn the trivium because you have used the trivium to defeat the trivium. Kinda self defeating, isn't it?

    Your "logic" is leaky. A thing may be used to refute it by showing inconsistencies. Furthermore, two things or ideas sharing common elements or components do not make them identical. For example, "I do not love you but I hate you" and "I do not hate you but I love you" have exactly the same words (i.e. composed of the same elements) but have diametrically opposing messages. The Trivium has no patent on the use of "grammar, "logic," and rhetoric." No one objects to these. Rather, it's about the philosophy and methodology behind the Trivium.

    Let me explain one of the misguided concepts behind the Trivium. The Trivium is built on the repetitive memorization of facts, at least at the lower levels. It is repetition, repetition, repetition . . . . Learning is through repetition according to the Trivium. Unfortunately, I believed and taught this too in my younger days. We now better understand how learning takes place in the brain with association, not repetition. Repetition seems to work because one eventually learns when a random association clicks. Thus, learning is randomly driven by the high number of repetitions. The problem is that kids often get bored and despise learning before they can experience the taste of success. On the other hand, it would seem far better to intentionally teach with a view of making associations and connecting previous knowledge to new learning. Thus, the student learns more rapidly and is thrilled by the experience of success and the association of new things with what he has already assimilated. He is hooked on learning; it's cool!

    Perhaps we can illustrate the two views with basketball. If one randomly tosses a basketball toward the hoop enough times (repetition), he will eventually make the basket by the law of averages. However, it makes much more sense if he aims and shoots (association) for the basket that he will hit the hoop sooner and more often. How would you shoot basketball?

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Methods are not neutral . . . .
    Ron Bean wrote:

    The discussion over trivium, scope and sequence, etc. reminded me of an old debate that was going on in CE years ago over whether methods were neutral. One man, using I Corinthians 3:10 as his proof text, denied their neutrality. One noted Christian textbook publisher said that any biology textbook that taught from the simple to the complex was espousing evolutionary theory.

    Methods most certainly are not neutral. Some are better suited for teaching one thing than others. On the other hand, a method is not necessarily evil or good (morally) unless it has some sinful element or application (e.g. using a pornographic rock 'n roll video to teach the alphabet). Even the learning by discovery method has its place in teaching science and other subjects. As a 6-day creationist biologist (biochemistry/microbiology), there is absolutely nothing wrong in teaching concepts from simple to complex. A good teacher will teach part to whole and whole to part as appropriate for the content.

    The Christian school movement was an innovative and creative force in opposition to the establishmentarian public school. Christian schools were entrepreneurial enterprises that challenged the accepted thinking and status of the time. Anytime we step out of the bounds of the status quo, a lot of new ideas are generated--some good, some bad. We must filter out the bad and keep the good. A lot of good has come out of the Christian school movement.

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Repetition

    RPittman, sorry to 'pick' but your analogy with basketball actually works in favor of both of us. It is not just the action of aiming and shooting that enables one to make a basket but rather the repetition of those actions that enables one to repeatedly (there's that word again!) make a basket. It is the repetition of the proper form that enables you to be successful. It is the repeated use of proper form that will enable one to make the basket sooner and more often.

    Repetition can be taken too far but there is no complete substitute for it (not that I think you are trying to but it seems to feel that way).

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Laughing . . . . . . . . .
    Aaron Blumer wrote:
    RP wrote:

    Once again, Aaron, you've managed to muddy the waters....
    ...If I may quietly and kindly point out, worldview is not necessarily a naturally occurring phenomenon with an existence in reality. It is a theoretical construct, akin to Weltanschauung in rationalistic German philosophy...

    I'm muddying the waters? Laughing out loud

    Remind me again of when I said a worldview was "a naturally occurring phenomenon with an..." Well, of course it has an existence in reality. People have worldviews, ergo worldviews exist. There's no need to get all metaphysical. ... somebody might get the impression you don't actually have a point. Wink

    But I better stop. Roland, I think everybody's laughing at both of us. "The Aaron and Roland follies." Since they're not paying for the entertainment, I think I'll slink off the stage.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry but I think it is better to laugh . . . . LOL Laughing out loud

    Aaron, David K. Naugle, a professor at Dallas Baptist University who wrote his dissertation on worldviews, has published a book, Worldview: The History of a Concept. He notes that there are concerns by Christians, specifically some Reformer theologians, "about the relativist connotations associated with 'worldview' (p. 331)."

    Dr. Naugle questioned:

    Quote:

    To what extent does worldview as a modernist concept [emphasis added] not only carry the connotation of relativism, but paradoxically also convey a thoroughgoing objectivism which is equally antithetical to an historic, Christian understanding of creation and humankind and the relationship between them? Furthermore, could the formation of a worldview, even a Christian one, potentially distort the process of hearing and responding to the Word of God as divine revelation? And finally, might the intellectual project of constructing a coherent, biblically based worldview along with a concomitant vision for cultural transformation appropriately supplant the final end of all Christian activity rooted in the love of God and neighbor? These three questions surface the philosophical, theological, and spiritual hazards associated with the language of Weltanschauung as a means of apprehending the Christian faith. (pp. 331-332)

    Naugle makes a very interesting point about worldviews by quoting philosophy historian W. T. Jones: “Jones states the matter succinctly in this way: 'these differences of opinion about worldview reflect differences in our own worldviews' (p. 255).” Dr. Naugle goes on to state, here and elsewhere, that one's concept of worldviews is formed by his own worldview.

    David Naugle further questions why evangelicals are taken over by the worldview idea. He asks:

    Quote:

    . . . why has evangelicalism been particularly enamored of the idea of worldview and made such prodigious use of it is its reflections on the faith? Peter Heslam has pointed out that 'worldview' belongs to the vocabulary of modernity [emphasis added], and perhaps some kind of evangelical affinity for either the objectivism and subjectivism of this cultural mind-set accounts for the wide use of the term. Is the evangelical adaptation (or capitulation) to modern cultural trends partly responsible for its ready embrace of this concept? Or is the attraction grounded in weightier reasons, perhaps because 'worldview' taps into something deeply embedded in human nature? (p. 32)

    A pertinent question to ask is: “Have believers been co-opted by modernity in employing the vocabulary of worldview as an objectified way of relating to reality (p. 147)?”

    Professor Naugle quotes James W. Sires, author of The Universe Next Door: A Worldview Catalog:

    Quote:

    We have been reminded, or warned, that the concept of worldview is not a native, but rather an immigrant into Christian intellectual territory. And, like all immigrants, it has crossed our borders with its baggage in hand. (p. 256)

    Very well said!

    Aaron, I recommend that you read Naugle's book for enlightenment on worldviews. Perhaps you haven't been able to see bottom because of the muddy waters. Smile You will find that it is, as I said, merely an idea, a construct, a theory, etc. to conceptualize how we come to our opinions and beliefs given the information that we have. It is not necessarily a construct describing reality. It is based in 19th century modernism coming to its height in the early 20th century (p. 56) and has declined in some circles, particularly the social sciences (p. 239), in the present. I especially ask that you note the part on Jame W. Sires, who styles himself as a “premodernist.” I don't feel so lonely anymore.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Does repetition work?
    CPHurst wrote:

    RPittman, sorry to 'pick' but your analogy with basketball actually works in favor of both of us. It is not just the action of aiming and shooting that enables one to make a basket but rather the repetition of those actions that enables one to repeatedly (there's that word again!) make a basket. It is the repetition of the proper form that enables you to be successful. It is the repeated use of proper form that will enable one to make the basket sooner and more often.

    Repetition can be taken too far but there is no complete substitute for it (not that I think you are trying to but it seems to feel that way).

    Well, there seems to be a certain common sense argument behind what you say but it doesn't stand up to analysis. Random basketball shooting doesn't improve your shooting. In fact, it may decrease your skill. Every coach knows that practicing a skill incorrectly detracts from the skill. Also, at a more basic level, the neuro-physiology is different between memory and thinking compared to motor control and coordination. In practicing a motor skill, one is establishing a neural pathway as the dominate one when that skill is exercised whereas thinking and memorization is establishing new association pathways for recall and further association. Once established, review, which is a kind of repetition, helps keep the pathways active. However, the initial learning is based on making the association connection that transfers from short-term to long-term memory. Repetition, as envisioned in the Trivium, is hit-or-miss until one happens to hit the right association. I did not say that repetition is not used and useful in good teaching but it is NOT the most efficient means of instruction and learning

    Finally, my argument for learning by association is based on the data and learning theory, not my basketball analogy used to illustrate the point.

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Can we get anywhere?

    To quote myself on this I said, "It is the repeated use of PROPER form that will enable one to make the basket sooner and more often." As my preaching professor in college always said, "Practice dosent make perfect so make sure you are practicing it right."

    If you practice the PROPER form then you will improve but the level of improvement will depend on your personal abilities. So not everyone practicing the same form for the same period of time will have the same exact results....but now we are way off topic:)

    I feel like my words are dying the death of a thousand qualifications........

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    What faulty assumptions lie behind standardized testing?
    Susan wrote:

    On standardized testing- my kids have to test every year, and standardized tests are the dumbest thing to come down the pike since Chihuahuas in handbags. I don't care who creates or 'interprets' them, they are based on faulty assumptions. And if they can't measure critical thinking skills, research ability, and creativity, then save some trees (and me $75, two days of my time, and about $1.50 postage) and stop printing them.

    Susan, these are broad and general statements. Would you care to elaborate? I've heard standardized achievement testing blasted from both sides of the spectrum--liberal and conservative--but I have not found the arguments persuasive. The only convincing criticisms that I've heard are problems resulting from misunderstanding and misuse of standardized testing. Of course, these do NOT test creativity, research ability, etc. Furthermore, they cannot test motivation, attitudes, etc. either. They were never designed to test those things. It is somewhat like faulting a S-10 Chevy pickup because you can't haul and dump ten tons of gravel; it was never designed for this. You need a large tandem dump truck.

    Good standardized achievement tests, on the other hand, can pretty well tell you how your fifth grader is functioning in comparison to other fifth graders across American. Also, it can give you some indication of his or her relative strengths and weaknesses. Coupled with a mental abilities measure, it can give some indication if the student is working up to his or her ability. Given annually over a period of time, the tests can show learning trends and provide formative assessment for instruction.

    Could you please tell me what the faulty assumptions are? I'm speaking of test theory, not the weaknesses of individual tests. (I participated in the norming of the CAT (California Achievement Test) some years ago and I have little regard for this instrument because of the sloppy workmanship involved.)

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Clearing ambiguity and promoting accuracy . . . . .
    Roland wrote:

    Aaron, I recommend that you read Naugle's book for enlightenment on worldviews. Perhaps you haven't been able to see bottom because of the muddy waters. You will find that it is, as I said, merely an idea, a construct, a theory, etc. to conceptualize how we come to our opinions and beliefs given the information that we have. It is not necessarily a construct describing reality. [emphasis added] It is based in 19th century modernism coming to its height in the early 20th century (p. 56) and has declined in some circles, particularly the social sciences (p. 239), in the present. I especially ask that you note the part on Jame W. Sires, who styles himself as a “premodernist.” I don't feel so lonely anymore.

    The emphasized segment above does not accurately convey my intention. It simply means that the concept of worldview is a construct of the human mind that may or may not correspond to reality. We are not talking of specific worldviews corresponding to reality.

    Jim Peet
    Jim Peet's picture
    Offline
    ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
    Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
    Posts: 3491
    Ifs

    • If a church can partner with other churches to have a regional school, DO IT! This is superior to a single church hosting a school (Exemptions for churches over 500 in membership)
    • If you cannot pay teachers an adequate salary plus benefits (like a health care plan and a 403(b) plan), DON"T START A SCHOOL! I've seen poor teachers at the near end of retirement who faithfully served in near poverty! Shame on the schools who treated them like slaves!
    • If you cannot host a school with teachers who have degrees in the area in which they are to teach (Math teacher has a math degree or a math / teaching degree, et cetera), DON"T START A SCHOOL
    • If you do not intend to seek accreditation, DON"T START A SCHOOL
    • If your church is not financially sound, DON"T START A SCHOOL
    • If you cannot honestly answer this question "YES" - to a church member, "It is your decision as to where to send your child to school. If you decide to send your child to a public school OR home school, we will still regard you as an equal in our church! And your child will be regarded as an equal in youth group!" - If cannot say "Yes" to this question ... DON"T START A SCHOOL!

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Jim you are right on with all

    Jim you are right on with all of those remarks! Because they cant do #1 most of them fail or limp along and drag everyone else with them. Most of the schools I attended or knew of did all of the rest and it was a shame.

    Joel Shaffer
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Tue, Jun 16 2009
    Posts: 221
    So far, I have hesitated to

    So far, I have hesitated to get involved in this conversation because I really don't have a dog in this fight. I have 4 kids and we have had our kids in the public schools, christian schools, and we even home schooled our oldest for one year. I am inclined to side with Susan and Micah where the parents are essential for whatever method that we choose in the education of our children. As for allowing godless, worldly philosophy from the public schools into our children's lives, there are many old testament examples of leaders that were educated this way. Moses, for example, was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), yet God used him to deliver his people. Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo were others that were educated in a pagan setting, yet they did not compromise their faith in Yahweh. Of course, none of these mentioned had much of a choice in the matter. But it does serve as Biblical descriptive (not prescriptive) examples that if the Biblical foundation and discernment is taught by the parents to their children, one can survive or even thrive among pagan education........

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    The germ of a good idea but . . . . .
    Jim wrote:

    If you cannot host a school with teachers who have degrees in the area in which they are to teach (Math teacher has a math degree or a math / teaching degree, et cetera), DON"T START A SCHOOL

    This has the germ of a good idea but it is too general, too open and shut, and too emphatic. There are good, qualified people who are able to teach courses outside of their degrees. For example, most science teachers, especially those with graduate degrees in science, have a strong math background in algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc. making them well-qualified to teach a HS math course. Some good math teachers have an engineering background and the business teacher with accounting knowledge is well able to teach general and consumer math courses. One can argue that science majors, engineers, and accountants make better math teachers because they have the view of math application to the real world. (I learned more math in my college chemistry and physics courses than in my calculus courses.) The emphasis ought to be on qualifications, not degrees or certification. A school should hire only hire teachers qualified to teach in the area for which they are hired to teach.

    Ron Bean
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
    Posts: 309
    RPittman wrote:Jim
    RPittman wrote:
    Jim wrote:

    If you cannot host a school with teachers who have degrees in the area in which they are to teach (Math teacher has a math degree or a math / teaching degree, et cetera), DON"T START A SCHOOL

    This has the germ of a good idea but it is too general, too open and shut, and too emphatic. There are good, qualified people who are able to teach courses outside of their degrees. For example, most science teachers, especially those with graduate degrees in science, have a strong math background in algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc. making them well-qualified to teach a HS math course. Some good math teachers have an engineering background and the business teacher with accounting knowledge is well able to teach general and consumer math courses. One can argue that science majors, engineers, and accountants make better math teachers because they have the view of math application to the real world. (I learned more math in my college chemistry and physics courses than in my calculus courses.) The emphasis ought to be on qualifications, not degrees or certification. A school should hire only hire teachers qualified to teach in the area for which they are hired to teach.

    As a former Christian school administrator, I would agree with this. I've seen schools who had people with engineering degrees teaching math and science. One had a person with a degree in nursing teaching biology. But this option rarely happens. Instead, those teaching math and science seldom have any meaningful qualifications.

    (Anecdote) One fine young man I know wanted to teach history in a Christian school. He graduated with honors and discovered that schools weren't interested in hiring a history major. A number of them told him that "anyone can teach history" and admitted that none of their history teachers had majors in the field.

    Concerned parents will ask about the qualifications of teachers and most of them won't settle for "they really love their students".

    __________________

    "Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

    Andrew K.
    Andrew K.'s picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Tue, Aug 24 2010
    Posts: 45
    standardized testing

    I'm not a fan of standardized tests. I teach for a Cambridge examination; and I've seen that, when the stakes get high enough, in-depth instruction goes out the window and the focus becomes the Test.

    Supposedly, a well-made test circumvents this problem, but I've yet to see one made well enough that marks can't be inflated by spending inordinate amounts of time practicing the skills that award the most points and learning strategies that apply specifically to said exam.

    If this practice can be avoided, with regard to lower-stakes standardized tests, perhaps there is less of a problem. I'm mainly speaking from my own experience here, which may be unique.

    __________________

    神是爱

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Too many cooks . . . . .
    Jim wrote:

    If a church can partner with other churches to have a regional school, DO IT! This is superior to a single church hosting a school (Exemptions for churches over 500 in membership)

    Remember the old saying too many cooks spoil the broth? Well, it's true with too many heads of one school. One church, although small, can start a school and draw students from several area churches if the proper relationships are cultivated. Regional schools often lose their direction and focus by trying to be all things to all men.

    Wait a minute . . . I can already hear the objection coming . . . how can a small church afford it? Well, I've always been of the opinion that a school should operate out of its tuition revenues. Oh, before someones objects that it can't be done, I've already been there and done that!

    The problem is that Christian schools try to operate like public schools--too much overhead, needless top-heavy administration, run a deficit, and expect subsidizing by the church. It is purely a matter of balancing the student-teacher ration, tuition, and salaries. Each class should be financially self-sustaining. Approximately 80% of the overall budget should be in teacher compensation of salaries and benefits.

    By patterning our structure after public schools and other Christian schools, a number of non-productive procedures (e.g. formal teacher observations, etc.), bureaucracy (e.g. needless forms, duplication of data, useless procedures, etc.) and extraneous overhead (e.g. supervisory/administrative personnel, etc.) result in higher costs and inefficiency. (The best advice that I've ever heard in time management and efficiency is to ask if I don't do this what or whom will it hurt? If no one, then don't do it!) There's lots of wrong-headed thinking in Christian schools but that's off topic here . . . perhaps another place and another time . . . back to the topic . . . .

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Sad, but true . . . .
    Andrew K. wrote:

    I'm not a fan of standardized tests. I teach for a Cambridge examination; and I've seen that, when the stakes get high enough, in-depth instruction goes out the window and the focus becomes the Test.

    Supposedly, a well-made test circumvents this problem, but I've yet to see one made well enough that marks can't be inflated by spending inordinate amounts of time practicing the skills that award the most points and learning strategies that apply specifically to said exam.

    If this practice can be avoided, with regard to lower-stakes standardized tests, perhaps there is less of a problem. I'm mainly speaking from my own experience here, which may be unique.

    Sadly enough, your experience is not that uncommon. A lot of tutoring services play the little shell game by doing a pre-test to show parents how poorly the student is performing, do 6-8 weeks of tutoring the test at a stiff price, and do a post-test to show improved results. The parents are impressed, the tutoring service pockets a nice profit, and the student goes back to school having gained no new useful skills. This is the misuse of testing that contributes to its bad name. Teaching the test is also a common practice in PS where standardized testing is mandated. This is unethical.

    The quality of test results depend largely on the expertise and integrity of the people administering and interpreting the results.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    I'm with you on this one . . . . .
    Jim wrote:

    If you cannot pay teachers an adequate salary plus benefits (like a health care plan and a 403(b) plan), DON"T START A SCHOOL! I've seen poor teachers at the near end of retirement who faithfully served in near poverty! Shame on the schools who treated them like slaves!

    Christian schools have been largely built on the backs of dedicated Christian school teachers! Sometimes, I think the reason that God has not blessed ABC Christian School is because of the way it treated HIS people--the Christian school teachers. Why should the teachers be asked to make greater sacrifices than the parents are willing to make for their own children? I asked a bank executive this question once when he and his wife were complaining about tuition rates. They didn't like the question and didn't answer it! Cool

    Keeping the compensation at 80% of budget is an important factor in seeing that the teachers are adequately compensated. Even a large budget does not mean proper compensation if the money is spent on other things.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    History teaching . . . . .
    Ron Bean wrote:
    RPittman wrote:
    Jim wrote:

    If you cannot host a school with teachers who have degrees in the area in which they are to teach (Math teacher has a math degree or a math / teaching degree, et cetera), DON"T START A SCHOOL

    This has the germ of a good idea but it is too general, too open and shut, and too emphatic. There are good, qualified people who are able to teach courses outside of their degrees. For example, most science teachers, especially those with graduate degrees in science, have a strong math background in algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc. making them well-qualified to teach a HS math course. Some good math teachers have an engineering background and the business teacher with accounting knowledge is well able to teach general and consumer math courses. One can argue that science majors, engineers, and accountants make better math teachers because they have the view of math application to the real world. (I learned more math in my college chemistry and physics courses than in my calculus courses.) The emphasis ought to be on qualifications, not degrees or certification. A school should hire only hire teachers qualified to teach in the area for which they are hired to teach.

    As a former Christian school administrator, I would agree with this. I've seen schools who had people with engineering degrees teaching math and science. One had a person with a degree in nursing teaching biology. But this option rarely happens. Instead, those teaching math and science seldom have any meaningful qualifications.

    (Anecdote) One fine young man I know wanted to teach history in a Christian school. He graduated with honors and discovered that schools weren't interested in hiring a history major. A number of them told him that "anyone can teach history" and admitted that none of their history teachers had majors in the field.

    Concerned parents will ask about the qualifications of teachers and most of them won't settle for "they really love their students".

    Oh, NO! You can't waste that history position on a history major--you gotta save it for the coach! After all, a good coach is more important than any history major. He makes for a good athletic program that draws students. After all, why do you have a Christian school? To have ball teams, of course! Laughing out loud

    Aaron Blumer
    Aaron Blumer's picture
    Offline
    UserEditorAdmin
    Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
    Posts: 5382
    The ruin of perfectly good concepts

    In response to several posts further up the thread...

    I hate to see perfectly good concepts ruined by shifting tides... in this case, a sort of "worldview" fad, now followed it seems, by the beginnings of an "antiworldview" fad. OK, if we're getting hung up on the term, let's try to save the concept.

    There are ultimate questions every thoughtful (and most non-thoughtful) human beings have about themselves and the world they live in. The answers to these questions are what I'm talking about (e.g., Who or what are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? How do we go about getting answers? How do we identify right and wrong?)

    There is only one Christian set of answers to those questions. If it's hopelessly 1990's to call this a "worldview," call it something cooler. The reality is that these basic lenses through which we look at the world exist and have always existed. They will not be philosophized away.

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Worldviews

    I'm with Aaron on the use of the term "worldview" as appropriate. Just because the word was 'invented' does not mean it cannot be used from then on (can we say trinity!). Also, words tend to change in meaning and sometimes become better defined in meaning and use and so I think so with worldview. It's a word that accurately (as best it can) describes the sum set of beliefs a person has (whether consciously or not). As Aaron said, it is the lens through which you view the world and is made up from all of your beliefs whether coherent, conscious, false or not.

    I taught a class at church on the Christian worldview and in the 6-8 books I read no one questioned the use of the term. I confess I did see Naugle's book but I just never got to it. I am not saying the term is beyond critique and we need to ignore the context from which it came but it is a useful word/concept and I will carry it with me to my grave! -:)

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Preserving the rationalistic concept . . . . .
    Aaron Blumer wrote:

    In response to several posts further up the thread...

    I hate to see perfectly good concepts ruined by shifting tides... in this case, a sort of "worldview" fad, now followed it seems, by the beginnings of an "antiworldview" fad. OK, if we're getting hung up on the term, let's try to save the concept.

    Why save it? It is purely a concept that arose out of the heart of Modernism and it doesn't work just as other Modernist concepts have faltered. The concept is fatally flawed. Why are Christians so infatuated with something that is by nature antithetical to their beliefs? I think that I know. They are trying maintain one foot in the paradigm of Modernity and the other in their paradigm of faith. They mistakenly believe that they must justify their paradigm of faith within the Modernist paradigm. It cannot be done!

    Quote:

    There are ultimate questions every thoughtful (and most non-thoughtful) human beings have about themselves and the world they live in.

    Propaganda! Every sophomore learns this propaganda technique in PS201. Don't try to prejudice the argument by identifying "thoughtful" with your side. Drop the adjectives. Perhaps the more thoughtful are the ones willing to think outside the box of rationalism.

    Quote:

    The answers to these questions are what I'm talking about (e.g., Who or what are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? How do we go about getting answers? How do we identify right and wrong?)

    We can only know with certainty what God tells us. Anything else is tentative, changeable, analogous, approximation, and subject to refutation. What you're arguing is a thorough-going Modernist rationalism, which you have denied believing. The rest is semantics.

    Your questions are straight out of the Modernist catalog.

    1. Who or what are we?
    2. Where did we come from?
    3. Why are we here?
    4. How do we go about getting answers?
    5. How do we identify right and wrong?

    The inferred conclusion suggested by the questions is that the answers are derived via reasoning (i.e. rationalist methodology). This is rationalism straight out of Modernity. Man can know and reason all things. As Christians, none of these questions can be answered by rationalistic methods. Only divine revelation can give us these answers. So, we either find these answers in the Word of God, which is not a rationalistic document, or we don't know. There are things that we don't know (Deuteronomy 29:29) and won't know while mere mortals.

    Take question #2 for example. As creationists, we say that science and rationalistic methodology cannot give us answers as to origins. Only God can reveal the origin of man, life, and the universe. Do you believe this? Man applying rationalistic methodology to this question arrives at evolution.

    Having received my fair share of ridicule for calling you a Modernist, it is gratifying for me to see you give such an obvious illustration of your commitment to the Modernist paradigm and rationalistic methodology. Perhaps you really don't realize what you've bought into.

    Quote:

    There is only one Christian set of answers to those questions.

    This is patently and obviously false. One only has to observe the competing answers to these questions among various Christian theologies. Reason cannot resolve the debates or it would have done so long ago.

    Quote:

    If it's hopelessly 1990's to call this a "worldview," call it something cooler. The reality is that these basic lenses through which we look at the world exist and have always existed.

    How do you know? Where's your evidence? This concept, not just the word, did not exist until the rise of Modernity and it doesn't adequately explain the phenomenon (i.e. doesn't work). So, how can you say it's part of reality?

    Quote:

    They will not be philosophized away.

    After all, worldview is a philosophical concept, so what is wrong with philosophizing about it? Also, is it philosophizing to say it doesn't work? Your own paradigm of Modernity, which spawned the idea, says that it doesn't work. And it is antithetical to certain Christian views. So, why the love affair with the worldview concept? What's wrong with going directly to the Word of God instead of interpreting the Word through our "worldview?" (I expect the argument that our understanding of the Word of God is shaped by our worldview but I counter in that by reading the Word of God the Holy Spirit interacts within us and our reading of the Word to change our views into conformity to the Word. The indwelling Holy Spirit (instead of our worldview, rationalistic methodology, or scholarship) leads, guides, directs, and illumines (John 16:13) our understanding of God's Word by reading. The Scriptures clearly teach that the natural man (i.e. reason/rationality) cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned (I Corinthians 2:14). If we came to faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit through hearing the Word of God, why is it so hard to believe the Holy Spirits leads us in comprehension and understanding through reading the Word?)

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Roland I am beginning to

    Roland I am beginning to wonder if you even know what a worldview is anymore.

    I think this conversation is beyond redemption..lol

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    I'm from Missouri . . . show me . . . .
    CPHurst wrote:

    Roland I am beginning to wonder if you even know what a worldview is anymore.

    I think this conversation is beyond redemption..lol

    Then please explain what I fail to understand. The ball is in your court!

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Worldview . . . is it real?
    CPHurst wrote:

    I'm with Aaron on the use of the term "worldview" as appropriate. Just because the word was 'invented' does not mean it cannot be used from then on (can we say trinity!). Also, words tend to change in meaning and sometimes become better defined in meaning and use and so I think so with worldview.

    Worldview is probably more fragmented and ambiguous today than when it was first proposed.

    Quote:

    It's a word that accurately (as best it can) describes the sum set of beliefs a person has (whether consciously or not). As Aaron said, it is the lens through which you view the world and is made up from all of your beliefs whether coherent, conscious, false or not.

    Is there such a lens? Or, does our perspective change with time and circumstance? How stable are views/beliefs? Where is the evidence that this lens exists? Is a person's set of beliefs static or in flux with details constantly changing in each application? How many of these beliefs are pre-determined or are they created on the fly when confronted with a novel situation? Are these beliefs or worldview largely connotative or denotative?

    Quote:

    I taught a class at church on the Christian worldview and in the 6-8 books I read no one questioned the use of the term.

    Yes, and I'm willing to venture that every one of them was proposing a Christian worldview or at least some worldview. So, the authors had a vested interest that would have been self-defeating in denying the concept of what they were proposing. Also, how many of these books were the pseudo-intellectual Christian fluff? Who were the authors? In the flurry of publications on worldview in the 1980-90's, only a few were solid thinkers with the rest being pitchmen.

    Quote:

    I confess I did see Naugle's book but I just never got to it. I am not saying the term is beyond critique and we need to ignore the context from which it came but it is a useful word/concept and I will carry it with me to my grave! -:)

    Believe what you wish. It may be cogent for you but not for me. Can you articulate why and how it is useful? Do you have any evidence or arguments other than you liked and believed what you read?

    BTW, Naugle does not necessarily agree with my views and I didn't get them from him. However, he does give a good historical perspective of the worldview concept and the issues related to it.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    Summation . . . . .

    To sum my arguments and get us back to the track of this thread, teaching a so-called Christian worldview is a faulty concept, a shaky premise, and an inadequate basis for Christian education. The primary purpose of Christian education, in whatever format, is teaching the Word of God. In the full-circle way of things, Bauder and I may not be too far apart.

    CPHurst
    CPHurst's picture
    Offline
    User
    Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
    Posts: 119
    Teaching the Word

    Roland, if in teaching the Word of God you get to God in math, science, etc. then I agree. If not, then I think that view is too truncated and flawed from the get go and falls into dualism.

    RPittman
    RPittman's picture
    Offline
    Former member
    Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
    Posts: 1170
    No dualism . . . . . .
    CPHurst wrote:

    Roland, if in teaching the Word of God you get to God in math, science, etc. then I agree. If not, then I think that view is too truncated and flawed from the get go and falls into dualism.

    No dualism here. These are all ancillary, although integral, to the main purpose.