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

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.

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]
[Jim] 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

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.

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.

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! -:)

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

I think this conversation is beyond redemption..lol

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]
[Aaron] 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 …
I feel like I’ve stepped into a Salvador Dali painting.

[img=250x182] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/The_Persistence_of_Memory…

So before Modernism came along, people just sort of approached every idea with no reference to how they saw the big picture? They didn’t think at all about how we got here, who we are, why we’re here, how to tell right from wrong (“the concept” I was referring to)?

But I don’t want to give the wrong impression. I’m, frankly, not at all interested in your answer to that.

There are a few convictions I have absolutely zero doubt about, and one of them is that people have belief-systems shaped, and circumscribed, by their answers to the basic questions I’ve mentioned (along with a few others). And they didn’t start doing that in the19th century (or even the 9th)!

To try to get back toward the real topic of the thread a bit, unless we want to take the position that belief itself is imaginary, Christian schools have, as huge part of their mission, teaching students how to look at the world in a Christian way and think about the world in a Christian way. They do that hand in hand with parents and churches, but the school (whether at home or separate from it) has to aim to equip students with a pile of knowledge that is shaped according to the Christian way of looking at the world—as well as how to think and communicate Christianly in general.

Hence, the Trivium or something pretty close to it.

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.

So, Roland, people didn’t have a view of the world until Modernity?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Before modernity, we (and Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas) would have talked about worldview in terms of a cosmology. What is the world? Is there a material and immaterial world? Does the earth revolve around the sun? Before modernity, these questions were flattened in the subject of cosmology. After the modern scientific age, we have a scientific view of the physical world, but then we have that part of the world to which science can’t speak. To me, this is the “worldview” which we talk about.

[RPittman] Worldview is a specific philosophical concept that came into existence through German rationalistic philosophy. Don’t believe me; the most cursory examination of the literature will confirm this. However, the definition of worldview is being mangled and mutilated beyond recognition by off-the-cuff logic. Worldview has been stretched, expanded, simplified, and diluted by those who obviously don’t understand it so that it can mean anything and everything thereby meaning nothing.

For those in the dark, there are alternative ways of viewing existence other than worldviews. But, this is not the topic of this thread and it is not the time and place to enlighten those who are in the dark—let them read on their own. We will simply note that several have stretched the idea of worldview until it is anything and everything. There is no argument against anything when definitions are trashed but then it means nothing and it is worthless discussing it.

The problem with worldview is that Christians are using a so-called Christian worldview as synonymous with the Christian faith. This idea is fraught with problems and pitfalls. One has only to read this thread to see the tenacious defense of this human concept in a way that Christians usually reserve only for Scripture.
Well, that’s just your worldview.

Seriously, though, I agree with everything you’ve said here. It’s impossible to separate worldview theory from post-Kantian idealism, and I do think it’s been damaging in at least some Christian schools. I think Calvin College would be a case in point, but for those who don’t know what’s going on there, I’m not going to rehash it in this thread.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

[Jim Peet]
  • 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!
I spent all thirteen years (K-12) of my primary & secondary education attending two local church run Christian schools, one from K to the middle of 3rd grade, and the second from mid-third grade to 12. The first school charged tuition, was open to other churches of like faith, and was self-supporting. The second did not charge tuition initially, was fully supported by the tithes of the administering local church, did not open to outside churches until much later in its existence, and was not self-supporting.

Academically, I received an excellent education from both schools that prepared me well. I look back on my days in Christian school as both profitable and well-spent.

The second (tuition-free) school began charging tuition in the mid 90s. Additionally, the doors were opened for the first time to churches of like faith. Both changes were brought about, in my view, NOT because it was the right thing to do, but because of financial pressures. The church could no longer support the school in full; in essence, the church & school relationship had become parasitical. The school was beginning to KILL the church.

As I look back, the comparison of the two schools is this: school #1 (charged tuition, self-supporting) is still in existence, although struggling somewhat financially. School #2 (tuition free until later, NOT self-supporting) shut its doors in 2002. Stunningly, although it was struggling financially, and operating on a MacGyver-ish operations mentality (shoe laces, duct tape, and some bubble gum holding everything together), and the church itself was beginning to struggle financially, it was a controversial vote to close its doors (it wasn’t until the church treasurer stood up in the meeting and stated that if the school wasn’t closed NOW, the church itself would cease to exist in 3 months that the majority of the membership was in favor of shutting its doors).

I am not opposed to Christian schooling. As a matter of fact, if it were financially feasible, my children would be in a Christian school (we currently homeschool).

I am opposed to Christian schooling existing at the expense of the local church. It should be A ministry of the local church, not THE ministry. Conversely, the church should not be seen as the sole supporter of the school.

I could type all day on this subject; I loved attending a Christian school, and owe much to the teachers and administrators.

However, Jim nails it right on the head -

IF the school cannot support itself, DON’T DO IT.

IF the parents are not willing to pay for a rigorous education for their children, DON’T DO IT.

IF the constituency is not willing to pay the price ($$) to support the teachers & administrators, and not treat them as slaves, DON’T DO IT.

IF the school is a drain on church resources in any way, DON’T DO IT.

IF the school faculty & staff, administration, parents, etc., are not willing to excel at operating a school, and pay the price for excellence, because we are representing Christ (we call it a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, don’t we??), DON’T DO IT!

Everyone wants a revolution. No one wants to do the dishes.