The Christian School

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.

Discussion

Classical education, or the Trivium Method, or the Principle Approach, or Charlotte Mason, or Montessori, or Waldorf, or my personal favorite- http://www.moorefoundation.com/article.php?id=5] 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’.

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.

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?

[CPHurst] 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 http://www.abeka.com/Resources/PDFs/ScopeAndSequence.pdf] 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.

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

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/flowers.gif
[RPittman] My point has been mangled and trivialized.
Yeah- tell me about it. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif
[CPHurst]

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] 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]

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] Knowing how to do the taxes is not enough without honesty.
You are doing it again. Quit it. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry031.gif

[CPHurst] 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.

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

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.

[RP]

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? :D

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. ;)

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.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

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?

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: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

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).

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……..

  • 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!