2.1 A Worldview Anchored in Christianity
Chapter Two: The Seven Characteristics of a Classically Educated Christian (2.1)
I’m currently revising the second draft of a short seven-chapter primer on Classical Christian Education and would like to invite you into the process by sharing this “work in progress” publicly. Please share your feedback and help me title the book by offering your suggestions in the comments.
Read Part 1 of Chapter Two
2.1 A Worldview Anchored in Christianity
It is essential for us to acknowledge that views about the nature of the world are not neutral, and neither is education. Every curriculum, every classroom, and every teacher imparts a vision of reality—whether true or false, whether explicitly or implicitly. As one educator noted, “at the broadest level, education is the process of passing on to the next generation the parents’ understanding of the nature of their world.”1 It would be appropriate at this place in the conversation to reemphasize that all education is informed by someone’s assumptions about the nature of the world—in a word, someone’s worldview.
Unlike modern secular education, which attempts to pretend education is neutral, and subsequently relegates religion to that of a private affair—or, in the very best case scenario, as an elective add-on—Classical Christian Education begins with the presupposition that all truth is God’s truth,2 that God revealed truths essential for human flourishing in two books—nature and holy Scripture3—and the Incarnation of Christ is the ultimate revelation of Truth, demonstrating it is not merely objective and ideal, but also personal and relational.4 It is the contention of classical Christian educators that without a biblical foundation, knowledge becomes fragmented, and education loses its ultimate meaning because the pursuit of knowledge is ultimately the pursuit of knowing God more deeply.5
This means every subject—whether history, mathematics, science, or literature—in order to be understood in its fullest sense, must be understood in light of God’s revelation about man and the cosmos. This means that Classical Christian educators are not just filling students' minds with what appear to be neutral facts; we are helping them to see the world as it truly is: created, sustained, and redeemed by Christ. Echoing St. Anselm, education is, in some real sense, fides quaerens intellectum (i.e., faith seeking understanding).6
This is so fundamental to a proper understanding of education, that some in the modern renewal have opted to refer to our pedagogy as Christian classical education in order to capture the idea that Christianity is the modifier of classical education, and not the other way around. Although the sentiment is appreciated, the choice is ultimately anachronistic, meaning it fails to recognize or at least linguistically acknowledge the historical fact that Christianity, as the natural outworking of its Incarnational enterprise, animated education in the classical period (8th century BC to 5th century AD) and ultimately fulfilled what the virtuous pagans of that period were seeking and anticipating. Thus, many educators choose to maintain the original description—Classical Christian Education—as indicative of the kind of education that we are seeking to renew—even if history has provided for a cumulative increase in its efficacy by way of degree.
The point both schools of thought are in agreement with, however, is that a classically educated Christian learns to interpret reality through the lens of the biblical narrative and to recognize Christ as the Logos, the rational order behind all learning. It is also a conviction of this author (and we hope of most classical Christian educators) that a true education is one that begins with a commitment to seeing all of life through the “remembering community’s” (i.e., Church) interpretive lens of Scripture (I.e., creeds and catechisms) and history.7
One final clarification must be made on this point, an assertion on which not everyone in the modern renewal of classical education will agree. Nevertheless, it’s an essential distinction parents and educators will benefit from knowing. Building on the momentum of Classical Christian Education but on foundations laid by democratic educators like Mortimer J. Adler and Robert Maynard Hutchins, the classical charter school movement also appears to be flourishing in this modern renaissance.
In much the same way that the American founding was, for the most part, established by Christians seeking religious freedom, but were heartily joined and sufficiently aided by a number of virtuous, freedom-seeking deists and enlightenment rationalists, the modern renewal of classical education functions with a similar degree of secularity (not secularism).8
It is the position of this author that although democratic classicism does offer much good to students who might otherwise never encounter Classical Christian Education, and for the time being, there is enough congruency in our missions to find common ground and cooperate with one another in most cases, modern secular classicism will ultimately fail due to the fundamental flaw in its worldview foundation—sans Christianity.
To return to a pre-Christian classicism will be to return to an unanimated classicism—no Incarnation. Or, to attempt to borrow from Christianity its transcendent goodness, truth, and beauty without its Christ is simply cut-flower (plucking the stem but leaving the root). Both are unwise because the former is dead already and the latter will inevitably wilt. Classical Christian Educators believe with C. S. Lewis that if you aim at heaven, you will get earth thrown in; but if you aim at earth, you’ll get neither.
Next up will be:
2.2 A Vision for a Liberated Humanity
2.3 A Foundation in the Seven Liberal Arts
2.4 Conversant in the Great Conversation
2.5 Some Proficiency in the Classical Languages
2.6 A Mastery of Rhetoric and Letters
2.7 A Personal Pursuit of Virtue and Wisdom
DW, Why Christian Kids Need a Christian Education, 9.
This note will expand to comment on St. Augustine’s assertion that all truth is God’s truth and borrowing from the Pagans is akin to plundering the Egyptians. St. Augustine, The City of God.
This note will expand to comment on Galileo’s assertion: “I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes.’” Galileo to the Grand Duchess, 91 (RRP).
This note will expand to comment on John’s use of Logos (John 1:1-14).
Dante, Paradiso, XXXIII, 142-145.
Anselm, Proslogium. Translated by S. N. Deane. I, BW, pp. 1 ff.
This note will expand to comment on the irenic nature of Mere Christianity. Also, although we must all find our place for worship and ministry in one of the modern iterations of Christianity (i.e., traditions or denominations), one of the benefits of classical Christian education is its ability to transcend these communion lines for the common good.
We tend to follow in the vein of Vincent of Lérins, who stated, “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132.
See my footnote 4 in the Introduction about the difference between secularity and secularism.