1/13/03
Puritan News Service
Classical education has become all the rage among
American Protestants. Religious leaders
such as Doug Wilson have done an effective job of selling it to the evangelical
Christian community. So it behooves us
to ask: is classical “Christian” education really
Christian?
It is important for us first of all to have of good
understanding of what classical education means. Here is how http://www.homehearts.com/Classical.html has
described it:
“Classical education makes use of the three stages,
or trivium, in which children (and adults) learn any subject. In the Grammar
Stage, the foundation of each discipline is
laid. This is a time of gathering facts, mastering
the four basic mathematic operations and perfecting spelling rules - usually
involving much memorization and drill. The
second stage is the Dialectic Stage in which the
student learns to reason or apply the basic facts he has learned. In this stage
logic is introduced. The student concentrates
on the cause and effect, or the "why", of
a subject. The final stage of the trivium is the Rhetoric Stage in which the student
learns to communicate what he knows about the
subject at hand in the most convincing way.”
Here is how another dispenser of classical education
defines it (see http://www.classicalfree.org/philosophy.asp) :
“We subscribe to the three stages of the ancient
trivium, as described by Dorothy Sayers in her essay, The Lost Tools of Learning. The Trivium involves three phases
of learning -- grammar, dialectic and rhetoric -- which apply in two ways
to the learning environment.
First, it
has been observed that the Trivium coincides with the natural phases of child
development. Early in life, during the
elementary years, a child is naturally curious and absorbed in the
accumulation of facts about the world around him – the grammar stage. Moving
into the early teen or Jr. High years, the child begins naturally to challenge,
to question, to integrate the data at his disposal -- the dialectic stage. And
finally, in the later teen or High School years the young adult begins naturally to express that which he has
learned in verbal and written form -- the rhetoric stage.
Second, it
has been observed that the mastery of each subject or field of study follows
this same pattern. From the student's standpoint it is discovery,
understanding, and application. From the teacher's standpoint it is state,
illustrate, and apply. In the language of the Bible, it is knowledge,
understanding and wisdom. In the language of the Trivium, it is grammar,
dialectic and rhetoric. The study of any subject begins with the grammar of
that subject, the definitions and basic concepts that provide the building
blocks of that subject. Once the fundamentals have been mastered a dialectic
process of reflecting on the facts, integrating them, and arriving at a deeper
level of understanding must occur. The process is not complete apart from the
rhetoric phase, in which the student learns to express that which he has
learned in verbal and written communication or other modes of application.”
Finally, let’s consider the dictionary definition:
“the word classical means of, pertaining to, or in
accordance with ancient Greek and Roman precedents. Classicism means aesthetic attitudes and principles based on
the culture, art, and literature of ancient Greece and Rome... So classical education means the education
of ancient Greece and Rome.”
American evangelicals are actually latecomers on the
classical education bandwagon, for it has been central to Jesuit education for
years. Here is how Herbert J. Ryan, SJ
- a Jesuit professor at Loyola Marymount University- describes the Jesuit
educational philosophy, as it relates to the “classical education” philosophy:
“My philosophy of teaching is a personal adaptation
of St. Ignatius of Loyola’s ideas about education as they are systematized in
the Ratio Studiorum of 1599. Throughout his writings in the mid-sixteenth
century Loyola developed specific themes from the works of Alexander Hegius,
Rudolf Agricola and Conrad Celtis, the Northern European theorists of education
at the end of the 15th and the start of the 16th centuries. They espoused a
systematic educational process centered on training in the Latin and Greek
languages, the rich literature these cultures developed and the rhetorical style they embodied. Knowledge
of history, competency in the fine arts, skill in logic and an appreciation of
philosophy and theology capped what came to be
known as a “classical education.” Loyola adopted these Northern
Humanists’ educational curriculum but made significant changes in it. Learning
from the experience of the first Jesuit teachers at Messina, Vienna and
elsewhere, Loyola retained the Northern European Humanists’ emphasis on
classical languages and literature but selected Cicero rather than Tacitus as
the author whose style should be imitated. In philosophy Ignatius Loyola chose
Aristotle and Aquinas rather than Plato and Zeno. Ignatius’ models for theology
were Augustine and Aquinas rather than Tertullian and Biel. Besides his frequently studied
emphasis on eloquentia perfecta
in oral and written expression, Loyola insisted on the study of
mathematics and the
physical sciences. He created an educational philosophy that laid the
groundwork for ‘a
culture of evidence.’”
There is indeed a strong connection between
classical education and the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum. Classical works and classical philosophy undergird much of what
represents classical education, rather than scripture and scripture alone. For instance, nowhere in scripture do we
find the “ancient Trivium” touted as our model for education. Indeed, scripture contradicts the “ancient
Trivium.” Scripture teaches that early
on we should teach children “why”, and not postpone such questions to the
Junior High years. And Biblical
philosophy should be the foundation of all knowledge, not also extra-Biblical
scholarship of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The Jesuits have been only too happy, on the other hand, to divert
attention away from scripture, and make other sources equally valid foundations
of knowledge. Let’s consider what Michael
Willliams, S. J. at Spring Hill College has written about this (see http://ntserver.shc.edu/www/Scholar/wms/wms.html)
:
“In this article, I am going to talk about Jesuit
education, and especially about a particular document, the Ratio Studiorum. I
shall first discuss the general theory of Jesuit education, and then
concentrate on the Ratio Studiorum itself, its history and contents. And
finally, I shall attempt to apply the concepts embodied in the Ratio Studiorum
to Spring Hill College in 1997, and
make some highly personal, but I hope not idiosyncratic or eccentric,
suggestions for the improvement of teaching at this institution.
Consider first the following list: St. John of the
Cross, St. Francis de Sales, Descartes, Moliere, Charles Carroll, Goldini,
Arthur Conan Doyle, James Joyce, Fidel Castro, Alan Alda, Tip O'Neill, and Bill
Clinton. This startling list of mystics and mystery writers, philosophers and
politicians, believers and unbelievers, saints and scoundrels--are all the
products of Jesuit schools. But the real glory of Jesuit education is not in
the above list, however illustrious or
infamous its members might be. The real glory of Jesuit education lies in the
hundreds of thousands of ordinary young men and women who have been educated in
Jesuit institutions to be able and articulate Christian citizens.
Jesuit education, both its theory and practice are
rooted in the life and spiritual vision of Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the
Society of Jesus…From a study of the Ratio Studiorum, the following main
characteristics of Jesuit education may be discerned:
1)
the ultimate purpose of Jesuit education is spiritual, to develop in the
individual a deep sense of love of God and service to the neighbor. In the
Preamble to Part IV of the Constitutions, Ignatius states: "The objective
which the Society of Jesus directly seeks is to aid its own members and their
fellow men to attain the end for which they were created. To accomplish this learning
and a method of expounding it are necessary" (IV.307).
2)
an integration of the intellectual, moral, and spiritual aspects of education,
to produce both solid learning and Christian virtue.
3)
a stress on formation rather than on information, the development of character
as well as the development of abiding
skills and habits of thinking.
4)
a stress of method and order; students are taken where they are, grounded and
drilled in fundamentals, and then advanced in orderly progression to more and
more complex material.
5)
students are required to be active in their own education rather than passive.
6)
an emphasis on the humanities, the liberal arts and sciences; the study of the
classics (great books) as sources of abiding wisdom and knowledge.
7)
a
final emphasis on developing eloquentia perfeca in all students--the ability to
think critically, speak forcefully, and write persuasively and gracefully (Ely
6-7).”
While there are some commendable aspects of Jesuit
education (and the classical “Christian” education it represents), the reality
is that embedded within it is a most pernicious idea: “an emphasis on the
humanities, the liberal arts and sciences; the study of the classics (great
books) as sources of abiding wisdom and knowledge.” What this amounts to is placing other sources of knowledge on
equal footing with the Bible. But this
the word of God will not allow.
According to scripture, it alone is the foundation of all knowledge, and
all other purported knowledge must be
tested against it. This means truly Christian education must be rooted
in a study of scripture, and then testing all other purported wisdom and
knowledge against it.
The best puritan and reformed education has sought
to correct these fallacies in classical education. It has sought to place scripture as the foundation of all
knowledge, and to inculcate reformed Biblical doctrines as its primary
objective. This does not mean classical
books were not read and studied, but the sole foundation was the Bible, against
which these classical books were judged.
Here is how someone has described the Puritan educational philosophy:
“The Puritans organized their government according
to the teachings that they found in the Bible and on the basis of their English
experience. This became the foundation of educational philosophy at the time.
For example, the New England Primer, the first textbook for the first-graders
used the Bible extensively to teach the alphabet, it was considered that the
contents were very similar to Sunday school curriculum.”
In his article “Family Instruction & Christian
Public Education in Puritan New England”, Rev. Kerry Ptacek has written (see
http://members.aol.com/kptacek/pepne.html):
“In 1641 the General Court of Massachusetts
requested the church to "make a Catechism for the instruction of youth in
the grounds of religion" (Sandford Fleming, Puritanism and
Children, p. 110). By 1642 Massachusetts enacted a
law holding family heads responsible for teaching their children and
apprentices to read. They also were charged with providing instruction on civil
matters in an amplified version of the law six years later (Edmund S. Morgan,
The Puritan Family, pp. 87-88)…
In 1647 the Massachusetts General Court passed
another law which ordered a township with at least 50 households to
"appoint one within the town to teach all such children as shall resort to
him to read and write." Towns with 150 or more families were required to
establish a grammar school.
The public school system was Christian from its
inception (Fleming, p. 105). Christian ministers were the school masters in
most cases (Thomas Welde, An Answer to W. R. (London, 1644). Cited in Morgan,
p. 175). Cotton Mather’s grandfather, Richard Mather, served as a school
master, as well as a preacher (Morgan, p. 104) ... In Connecticut school
masters were instructed "to examine [their students] every Monday on the
preceding day’s sermon and to catechize every Saturday from one to three in the
afternoon" (Bremer, p. 182).”
Of course, to an American public accustomed to an
education devoid of any trace of Christianity, classical Christian education
certainly looks good. But has that not
always been a strategy of the Jesuits:
give the public a choice between rank atheism and Jesuitism, so that the
public will willingly embrace Jesuitism?
Here is what someone has written about the true
nature of classical education:
“Classical education begins with a premise: the
student must learn the classics. The classics are pagan: Greek and Roman literature and philosophy. They were
based on the premise that man is the measure of all things, that man's reason
is ultimate. The rational side of the Renaissance was based on the same
premise. (Its irrational side was also a revival of Greek and Roman religion:
occult, magical, and either chance-based or fatalistic.)
Medieval Scholasticism was as committed to the
classics as the Renaissance was, though without classical occultism and
pornography. The Scholastics were committed academically far more to Aristotle
than to the Bible, especially in their political philosophy. They worshipped at
Aristotle's shrine. Prior to the eleventh century, medieval theologians had worshipped at Plato's shrine:
neoplatonic mysticism. The Scholastics substituted Aristotle for Plato. There
was some gain — Aristotle at least was not a communist, as Plato was — but not
in the realm of men's presuppositions. It was the equivalent of substituting
Milton Friedman for Karl Marx: better economics, but the same old humanism. For
humanism, man is the measure, and man's mind is the sole valid instrument of measurement. The Bible
denies this view.”
Is classical “Christian” education then really Christian? No.