From: Subject: ICE Cover Letter -- May, 1995 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:10:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/coverletters/cover95.05.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 ICE Cover Letter -- May, 1995

 

May, 1995

 

Dear ICE Subscriber:

 

Earlier this year, I received a letter from the = headmaster of a=20 Christian high school. The school, he said, is committed to providing = a=20 classical education. He asked me if ICE could supply materials that = would=20 improve his curriculum. I wrote back to him that the most important = thing he=20 could do for his students is to scrap his curriculum.

Peter wrote: "But it is happened unto them according = to the true=20 proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that = was washed=20 to her wallowing in the mire" (II Peter 2:22). He was not writing = about=20 classical education, but he could have been.

Classical education undermines Christian orthodoxy. = Christian=20 orthodoxy has tried to make classical education Christian for over = eighteen=20 centuries, and it has always failed; the reverse always happens. = Classical=20 education is a Trojan horse: Greeks bearing = gifts.

Classical education begins with a premise: the student = must=20 learn the classics. The classics are pagan: Greek and Roman literature = and=20 philosophy. They were based on the premise that man is the measure of = all=20 things, that man's reason is ultimate. The rational side of the = Renaissance=20 was based on the same premise. (Its irrational side was also a revival = of=20 Greek and Roman religion: occult, magical, and either chance-based or=20 fatalistic.)

Medieval Scholasticism was as committed to the = classics as the=20 Renaissance was, though without classical occultism and pornography. = The=20 Scholastics were committed academically far more to Aristotle than to = the=20 Bible, especially in their political philosophy. They worshipped at=20 Aristotle's shrine. Prior to the eleventh century, medieval = theologians had=20 worshipped at Plato's shrine: neoplatonic mysticism. The Scholastics=20 substituted Aristotle for Plato. There was some gain =97 Aristotle at = least was=20 not a communist, as Plato was =97 but not in the realm of men's = presuppositions.=20 It was the equivalent of substituting Milton Friedman for Karl Marx: = better=20 economics, but the same old humanism. For humanism, man is the = measure, and=20 man's mind is the sole valid instrument of measurement. The Bible = denies=20 this view.

From the beginning, the medieval university was = committed to=20 classical education, and from the beginning, rationalism and = irrationalism=20 (mysticism) undermined the Christian roots of education. By the time = of=20 Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution of 1642-59, the Puritans suspected = that=20 the curriculum of Oxford and Cambridge was against them, yet they did = not seek=20 to change it. They hoped that inward salvation would somehow make = Renaissance=20 rationalism Christian. Cromwell changed nothing at Oxford, even though = as Lord=20 Protector, he was chancellor of Oxford. John Morgan writes in his = survey of=20 Puritan education, Godly Learning: Puritan Attitudes towards = Reason,=20 Learning and Education, 1560=961640 (Cambridge University Press,=20 1986):

Puritans did not venture far from the traditional = academic=20 routine. The structures of educational institutions, and the content = as=20 affected by Renaissance urgings, seemed to satisfy their need for an = academic base. There can certainly be no doubt of the very limited = effects=20 of puritans to the legacy of the Renaissance, or in developing the = human=20 intellect in the Baconian sense of the `advancement of learning.' . = . . A=20 novel theory of learning or education lay outside the necessities of = a=20 puritan blueprint for the future (pp. = 305=966).

To indulge in classical education is to indulge in=20 Renaissance education. To force a child to learn Latin is to = encourage him=20 to accept the premises either of medieval Catholicism or the = Renaissance. Yet=20 today's would-be Puritans have accepted the error of those Puritans = who built=20 Harvard. Harvard went Unitarian in 1804. Christians know something is = wrong=20 with rationalism, yet they seem incapable of breaking with the past.=20

Van Til's apologetics should warn us: the history of = Christian=20 philosophy has been one long compromise with the philosophy of = autonomous man.=20 From Plato to Newton, from Newton to Kant, from Kant to some cast-off = liberal=20 fad, Christian philosophers have sought to baptize humanism. They hope = to=20 appropriate for Christ the anti-Christian philosophies of their day or = an=20 earlier day. They trust the natural mind of the natural man, refusing = to=20 acknowledge the enormous danger involved: the importation of alien=20 philosophical categories into the Church. And so, without = exception,=20 Christians for over 1800 years have surrendered education, and = therefore the=20 future (inheritance), to the humanists.

What is the obvious sign of this surrender today? The = futile=20 attempt to revive Latin. Why force a child to master Latin rather than = New=20 Testament Greek? Greek will enable him to read the New Testament in = the=20 original =97 an obvious benefit. But what is the benefit of Latin? = Except for=20 the historian of the ancient or medieval eras =97 for whom there will = be no=20 paying employment =97 Latin is peripheral. Yet it is seen as the mark = of true=20 learning. Latin was the universal language of the Western Church, = i.e., Roman=20 Catholicism and early Protestantism. But that learning was deeply = compromised=20 with Renaissance humanism. At best, Latin will enable a tiny handful = of highly=20 skilled, highly motivated, and poorly paid Christian scholars to read=20 fragments of the Latin Church fathers. Meanwhile, we live in an era in = which=20 the vast majority of Christians know nothing of Calvin, where = Calvinist=20 pastors have yet to read all of The Institutes of the Christian=20 Religion, let alone Calvin's commentaries. Forget about Latin; = teach the=20 Institutes. Abandon the futile boast: "My child is receiving a=20 classical education, just like the good old days." The good old days = produced=20 the bad new days, step by step. The assumption of intellectual = neutrality is=20 the Church's great enemy. Latin education was the primary agency used = to=20 spread this lie.

I see home school mothers who cannot read Latin, who = have no=20 intention of reading Latin, who are utterly uninterested in anything = written=20 only in Latin, buying Latin grammars to inflict on their hapless = children.=20 Why? Because somebody they trusted told them that "Latin is basic to a = well-rounded education." To which I reply: "Latin was basic to the = initiation=20 process of pagan and/or deeply compromised academics to gain control = over the=20 training of each generation of Christian leaders in England and = America."=20 Latin was a wedge used to separate Christian children from their=20 parents. In the same way that the sex education fanatics today = devise ways=20 to keep parents from finding out what teachers are really teaching the = children, so was Latin for six or seven centuries. To open the doors = of=20 ecclesiastical office and government patronage to your child, = Christian=20 parents had to surrender him to the Latin-based curriculum, a = curriculum that=20 rested squarely on the autonomy of man. The child was initiated = into=20 classical humanism by way of Latin.

What is nothing short of astounding is that there are = dedicated=20 Christians today who insist on doing this to their children. They = insist on=20 reviving the tool of their ancient enemies in the name of traditional=20 education. But traditional education was Satan's own tool for = capturing the=20 souls of Christians as well as their inheritance. Satan's agents = abandoned=20 that tool only late in the nineteenth century, when it became clear = that mass=20 education was going to make the traditional Latin school obsolete as = an=20 initiation process for the elite. At that point, the humanists = substituted the=20 modern curriculum, in which Latin plays no role. Latin has become a = lost tool=20 of learning. Let's keep it that way!

Is there a role for Latin? Only historical. If there = were a=20 self-conscious effort on the part of dozens of Christian schools to = create a=20 cooperative program for translating the 220 volumes of J. P. Migne's = Latin=20 Church Fathers, I would approve. But the cost =97 $65,000 for four = CD-ROM disks,=20 shared by four schools =97 is prohibitive. Christian schools do not = have the=20 funds or the vision to begin a project like this. Until they do, it is = foolish=20 to indulge in the waste of time that a Latin curriculum involves. The = vast=20 majority of children so initiated will learn only the equivalent of = pigeon=20 Latin. If a child cannot sight read a foreign language without a = dictionary by=20 age 14, then whatever benefits he has received from the exercise of = learning=20 that language are indirect, e.g., learning the rules of grammar. If = someone is=20 going to be forced to do this, then he should learn a language useful = to=20 Christians: Greek, first; Hebrew, second, and Latin only a distant = third. But=20 what do we see? Mostly Latin, with no Greek and no Hebrew. This is = Renaissance=20 pride in action.

What does your child really need? First, he must learn = how to=20 read early, so he will enjoy reading throughout his life. He must = learn to=20 read critically. This means he must also learn to write, for in = writing, the=20 student learns how others have communicated with him through the = printed page.=20 Reading and writing are complementary skills.

Second, he should gain a knowledge of the Bible. I = prefer the=20 King James Version, for these reasons: (1) the language is = magnificent; (2)=20 its unique phrases stick in the mind, making Bible study easier; (3) = the=20 Strong's numbers are tied to the King James, making serious Bible = study=20 easier, especially with a modern computerized Bible search program.=20

Third, he must master mathematics. Until there is a=20 self-consciously Christian version of Saxon's math program available, = we=20 should go with Saxon, which emphasizes review and mastery. Fourth, = anything=20 else that interests him. Let him master a subject for the joy and = experience=20 of mastering it.

Christian education should be highly focused on a = handful of=20 topics: reading-writing, Bible, and mathematics. To force a child to = take six=20 courses per semester is both traditional and foolish if the child has = not=20 first mastered reading, writing, arithmetic, and the Bible. If he has = mastered=20 these, he can pick up the other courses in short order, such as by = preparing=20 through Advanced Placement exam cram courses.

Students can sometimes gain admission to a local = junior college=20 and take courses that count for both high school and college. My son = did this:=20 he started college part-time at age 14. He graduated from high school = at 15.=20 He will be a junior in college the month he turns 18. Even if a child = does not=20 graduate, he or she can attend a junior college at age 18, when, by = law, the=20 JC must accept the child on a provisional basis, even without a = diploma.=20

A child who has gone through the King James Bible = twice and=20 Saxon's calculus once will get 1,000+ on the SAT, and will gain = provisional=20 acceptance in most colleges without a high school diploma. I have my=20 15-year-old daughter taking Saxon math (algebra II) and Shakespeare. = Every=20 week she writes a paper on one of the plays. She is getting a feel for = the=20 most magnificent English every written. Then I have her use a = computerized=20 typing course (Typing Tutor), so that she can type her weekly = paper.=20 Her grammar is generally correct; she can communicate on paper. She is = learning how to think.

The lust for academic certification is what has placed = the=20 Christians under the domination of the humanists for nine centuries. = How will=20 we break the cycle? Christians make their children take high school = biology.=20 Why? So they can cut up frogs and learn Darwinism? They make them take = high=20 school chemistry. Why? So they can find out that hydrogen sulfide = smells=20 rotten? They make them take high school history. Why? So they can get = the=20 Enlightenment view of American history, which is what most of the high = school=20 textbooks teach?

All of this can be picked up in college by anyone who = has=20 mastered the King James Bible and calculus. It does no good to = force a=20 child to speak pigeon history, pigeon chemistry, and pigeon anything = else at=20 the expense of fluency in reading, writing, Bible, and = mathematics. Yet=20 Christian day schools and most home schools are tied to the = state-approved=20 curriculum. The "innovative" ones then add classical education. We = compel our=20 children to read the lies of Greece and Rome that led to the = persecution of=20 the early Church. Like kidnap victims, the early Church's apologists=20 proclaimed the wisdom of their own kidnappers =97 what two decades ago = was=20 called Patty Hearst syndrome. That famous poster of Patty Hearst = holding a=20 machine gun during a bank robbery should be placed above the door of = every=20 Christian school headmaster whose school teaches classical education.=20

 

Sincerely,