Some Classical Caution From a Lutheran Educational Perspective.

I'm simply not convinced about Classical education.  In fact, I have some concerns about some of it.  I see a tiny red thread of Reformed theology wending through the Christianized Classical educational approach. Of course, if you are Reformed, that's perfectly fine.   I'm also struck by the way Classical Ed is talked about as something that is uniquely Christian.  In fact, all methodologies of eduction, including Classical, have roots in in pagan societies.  If you'd like to talk to me about constructing a Christian version of the yeshiva, then I'll buy the "this is our heritage" line of thinking.

It is certainly laudable to teach our youth about logical fallacies and formal rhetoric.  It is beneficial for high school students  to learn about the great conversations of Western Civilization, and they should do more than read a dumbed-down version of The Odyssey.  There is much to be gained by children studying at least a bit of Latin. (It improves a child's English grammar and vocabulary, for starters.)  I do not, however, think (as many of the Classical ed fans do) that there is anything inherently superior or uniquely Christian about the Classical approach to education, and it is disingenuous for proponents to pretend that there is.   The old-school Liberal Arts, which were born out of the methods used in pagan Athens to educate the social elite, are based on the idea that the training and crafting of the human intellect makes an individual the most useful to the greatest number of people.  It's a very small step from that to full-out Humanism.  In my mind, that has the potential to be as dangerous as the Progressive model of education, which seeks to turn out people who fit appropriately into their assigned places in a consumerist society.  Different issues, both models, but both still lacking the unique Christian view of broken, imperfect sinners acting in service to their neighbors as masks of God. (Never heard of the "masks of God" concept? Read this.)

It's also easy to see that someone who is classically trained may eventually turn their rhetorical skills and "Aristotelian dialectic" onto Scripture.  Once you start applying human reason (however well-trained) to Scripture, well, you end up Reformed.  Once you take every verse to its "logical conclusion," you end up with things like double predestination and the idea that Christ cannot possibly be in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, since he's already ascended to the Father.   

Of course, just because there's a danger in the misapplication of a skill set doesn't mean we shouldn't study them.  Studying rhetoric is a fantastic thing. Classical content (as opposed to methodology) is also wonderful.  I just can't embrace Classical Ed as the Best Thing For Raising Little Lutherans since Luther penned, "Was ist das?"  And Classical Ed is certainly being presented that very way in some quarters.

There are definitely good benefits due to the resurgence of interest in classical literature, but I do not see that copying the way that Athens trained their elite citizens is some wonderful new magic bullet that will restore the church to a position of influence in this country. (Which I have my own doubts about the wisdom of anyway; that's another post, I think.)

Comments

[IndianaJane]

You nailed it. :)

[Melody]

I agree that Classical education is not inherently Christian. In fact,I hung out with fundy homeschoolers when I first used it, and they were very vocal about paganism of the model. I do like, however the ideas of engaging the Great Conversation, of aiming subject matter at the developmental stage of the student, and then revisiting subject matter at a few levels, to aim for mastery. To each her own!

[Elephantschild]

Yup, absolutely YES on the Great Conversation, Melody!

[Erin]

I wish I was as smart as you are. I liked your post! It was great seeing you and SK.

[Matthew N. Petersen]

Well, in defense of it: I went to Logos K-12, and New St. Andrews for a while (the originals), and if anything, the logic and rhetoric when applied to Scripture turned me from Reformed to Lutheran.

[Elephantschild]

Good to hear, Matthew.

I want to be clear; I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the Classical approach, in fact, I feel there is much benefit from it. What I have an issue with, though, is the presentation of such as the "only valid way to educate children," and that is indeed the bent of some of the discussions of it that I've heard.

[Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake]

I agree that there's no reason to consider it the end-all and be-all of Christian education. I'm inclined toward it because it was historically the soil from which several philosophical and political principles I hold dear originally sprouted, but that's an entirely secular prejudice. Also, while it's one pedagogical tradition that's certainly been proven broadly successful, and there are several others. But to suggest there's a particular danger in the application of Aristotelian dialectic to Scripture is to argue against teaching any critical thinking at all, lest it fill young minds with doubt. It certainly doesn't seem to have been a hurdle to all the early church fathers.

[Elephantschild]

I'm inclined to it, too; at least, the the content that is studied in it. In fact, as my friend Jane wrote today, much of what we do around here as a loosely structured natural learning homeschooling family falls into the format and stages of learning of the Classical model.

I'll cede you the point whether there's danger in applying Aristotelian dialectic to Scripture.

[Kay M.]

I would disagree with you regarding classical education making a person the most useful to the most people. I would argue that classical education seeks to fill the person with truth and beauty...and doesn't worry one whit whether or not it's useful in the world. In that truth and beauty I would include the Word.

Also, while classical ed. does have pagan roots, it also has strong roots in Lutheran Christianity, as in the curriculum that Melanchthon developed. Perhaps that's what some Lutherans mean when arguing that it maintains our traditions.

[beth]

Good points, Kay! I have never seen classical ed. as being 'outcome based' at all, as far as creating a person who is 'useful' but simply as a tool to methodically and creatively teach what has come before , pointing to the good, the beautiful and the true and allowing the Scriptures then to do the changing and growing of the child into what God intends. Your post has caused me to reflect, Jenny--thanks for that!

[Elephantschild]

I'm glad you disagree with that concept, Kay. That is however, an exact quote from one of the plenaries last week!

[Kay M.]

How interesting! But not surprising...classical educators disagree about how to do it as much as homeschoolers disagree about how to homeschool!

Wish you had come to my sectional at CCLE instead, might've given a slightly different viewpoint!

Thanks for your insights, btw.

[Susan G]

Beth and Kay both mentioned how classical ed points to the good and seeks to fill the person with truth and beauty.

Okay, I admit that I don't have a very good concept of what classical ed is: too many experts on classical ed contradict each other about what constitutes classical ed methodology and/or/versus content. What I don't grasp is why it is classical ed that is all about imparting truth and beauty and not looking for particular outcomes. Is there some reason that classical ed is superior to unschooling or unit studies or learning-thru-lit as a way to impart these values and education? (Another quote that Jenny could throw at you from last week would be that unschooling is completely incompatible with classical ed.)

[Kay M.]

It's entirely possible that Dr. Tallmon got that last comment from me, I don't know. I did say that, prefaced by IN MY OPINION. And I did try to define the type of unschooling I was referring to. (That has as many definitions as classical ed, imo.)

As I see it, classical ed strives for the highest and the best, sets the bar very high for the students, and expects a lot of rigorous work. That certainly could be accomplished in many ways. And it certainly encompasses expectations of core knowledge and curriculum. I think that could mean unit studies, learning through lit, etc.