Gary North periodically takes a shot at classical Christian education. This would be fine, and no one in the CCE movement should object to it. Who does not want to warmly greet a hale and hearty interlocutor?
However, it does not follow from this but there’s nothing to object about this article. His most recent foray into this arena is entitled: “So, You’re Thinking About Classical Christian Education. Think Twice.”
That particular article begins with this sentence: “I believe in honesty in advertising,” and goes on to outline a purportedly honest promotional letter for classical Christian education. But the only part of this article that I really want to take issue with is found in the first four words, “I believe in honesty.” The simple reply to that is, no he doesn’t, at least not the intellectual kind. If he were visiting our home — which he would be most certainly welcome to do — I don’t believe we would have to count our spoons after he left. But if the actual positions of his adversaries on this issue of debate were our spoons, Gary North jangles when he walks.
1. If he believed in intellectual honesty then he would cite classical Christian educators, with footnoted references, who were arguing for the things that he says classical Christian Christian education is promoting. Let’s be honest – between us girls – we don’t promote such things. He really shouldn’t attack a movement with hundreds of schools, tens of thousands of students, and multiple publications without demonstrating that he has some kind of first hand awareness of our actual published agenda.
2. If he believed in intellectual honesty then he would not fail to cite the multiple references from classical Christian educators who routinely attack the very same things he is attacking about pagan culture. I know that such citations exist because I wrote many of them. I would even supply them if requested. Alas, I have never been requested.
3. If he believed in intellectual honesty then he would not employ the same tactics that he violently objected to back when he was publishing his recon books. When he used to be quoted out of context or clean contrary to his grammatical meaning, he would object to it. And rightly so. So perhaps we may modify that Bible verse: the measure ye use on your future adversaries 30 years from now will be used on you back in the 80s. Theonomic sanctions occur in history, but are grounded in a timeless eternity, so maybe this is an already/not yet sort of thing in microcosm. From my own perspective, I believe myself to have been remarkably evenhanded on this whole issue. I object to slovenly scholarship when it was done to North and I object to it when it is done by North.
So that’s me, not taking sides.
Mr. Wilson, his article seemed to me to be much like when you say things about modern evangelicalism that are clearly false, but are exaggerations to make a point. Is he *wrong* about the pagan origins of classicalism?
I scooted over and read North’s article. It does fine at pointing out some glaring sins of classical culture. I don’t recall any effort, except the word “classical,” to connect Greco-Roman sins with what today’s “classical Christian education” is doing (as best I know from a distance).
/// I do think preferring Latin over Bible languages is kind of odd–if triune Jehovah chose Greek for His new covenant, and Hebrew (and Aramaic) to get ready for it, why is Latin more than an elective?
Andrew, I would say that many (if not most) schools learn Latin because it is the most prominent parent of English. Many schools also teach Greek (the one I teach at does).
I guess it depends on whether Mr. North’s point is that one should buy the curriculum he sells, rather than the one that all those nasty classicalists sell.
Sarcasm aside, it seems that Mr. North conflates the idea of learning from (or about) a culture with the process of adopting that culture.
Has he never heard of the concept of ransacking a culture for it’s useful, truthful and glorious bits, and leaving the offal by the wayside?
Mr. North gets the red card for excessive use of Wikipedia. When I reference Wikipedia to make a point, I feel that same sort of guilt that might come with citing Cliff Notes. Incidentally, if you go to the Wikipedia article (dangit I’m referencing it now) for Wikipedia:Academic_use the first line is “Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.” Talk about the liar’s paradox.
Andrew Lohr, Latin is fundamental to the tradition of the selected fathers, so Classical Education is how this tradition of men should be continued to be academically pursued, even now. It’s not important enough that the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek NT [/LXX] are the original languages [/the earliest extant OT and NT manuscripts] of God’s word; this crap or set of facts is (at least comparatively) irrelevant against the utility of knowing Latin. Nay, Latin must not be consigned to a mere elective if one is going to be serious about his education in attempting to master the traditions of Classical… Read more »
* … the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek [LXX/NT] are the original languages [/the earliest extant ….
Andrew, there are multiple reasons for the Latin, but none of them involve disparaging Greek or Hebrew. Because of alphabet and historical development, Latin is much more accessible to modern students. It is a good language to work on as you learn how to learn languages. Logos has also taught Greek, and speaking from my own experience, I wish I had learned Latin before Greek instead of the other way around. In addition, the study of Latin is a wonderful platform for mastery of English. Another side benefit can be seen in New St. Andrews’ new program, Wenden House. Most… Read more »
Ok, let’s at least applaud Mr. North’s manly bashing of that culture part of classical greek culture which endorses and promotes God-awful thinking and behavior.
But yes, he’s surely peeved seeing his competition score mega throngs of near illiterate parents, all the while praying his Ron Paul curriculum takes flight.
Eric, certainly I don’t disagree with North’s bashing of pagan Greek culture, but I don’t see much need to applaud or call “manly” the breathless exposition of the blindingly obvious, proving nothing anyone was disputing. Do I get plaudits for decrying the kicking of puppies and the praise of Stalin?
Why the characterization of Logos customers/parents (of which I am neither) as near-illiterate, BTW?
Thanks pastor Wilson (and Brian, sarcastic? but useful). I cheerfully grant that Latin is a useful tool, a calling for some, a hobby for some; that you don’t verbally disparage Hebrew and Greek; and that your experience entitles you to say you wish you’d learned Latin before Greek. (Would you suggest colleges and seminaries teach in that sequence? Do you know of any that do so?–“We’re truly delighted you want to learn the language God gave us the NT in. We require X amount of Latin first, not as a substitute though it does truly have other benefits, but to… Read more »
@Andrew:
The structures by which students are taught Greek are very similar to those by which they are taught Latin.
A reason for starting with Latin is so that the students may learn the learning-structures without having to wrestle simultaneously with a completely different writing system.
Once they have mastered the learning-structures, the student may apply them to the study of Greek, which allows them to devote more of their energy to learning the letter-shapes and vocabulary.
If one wanted to have some real fun with North, one could write a similar article, though more accurate, of the very Pagan and Total Depravity Denying, worldview within the Homeschool curriculum he is promoting/selling.
Order doesn’t necessarily imply priority, anyway. Some things are more logically placed earlier in the progression of learning, even if they’re not deemed the “most important thing to know.”
And placing the “priority” on Greek implies that the end game is always reading the scriptures in their original languages. This is not necessary for everyone, nor does everyone desire it, nor can I see any reason why everyone should. Advanced English literacy, however, should be a priority of any parent or teacher, and Latin does promote this in a way that Greek doesn’t add much to.
Gary North is not saying that any classical Christian educator teaches that these things are good, or approves of them. His argument is much different: 1. An assertion that classical education (If the Greeks were teaching it) did in fact look like these five points. 1. Polytheism: the dead spirits of male family heads, plus fertility gods 2. Slavery, which alone made classical culture possible 3. Warfare, with The Iliad as the central cultural document 4. Human sacrifice 5. Pederasty, which brought teenage boys and mature men together (the gymnasium) Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/07/12/youre-thinking-classical-christian-education-think-twice/#RkM4rZ9jcZ5Kz77o.99 2. An assertion that “Classical” curriculum… Read more »
It is a rare day indeed that I think Pastor Wilson has pulled his punches. It is a rarer day that I wish there had been, not less sarcasm, but more. This is how I, a mere Christian woman, interpreted what North is saying in his promo, which is “especially relevant to mothers since they want to understand what classical studies are”: “Yo, double-digit IQ home schooling moms in denim jumpers: A heartless and oppressive patriarchy has denied you the right to an education. It’s tough to go through life thinking that Homer Simpson wrote The Iliad and that Aristophanes… Read more »
Define ‘classical’?
Jill, holy moley that was funny. Almost spilled my Cheerios.
Dr North has responded today in another article addressing more of the same:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/12672print.cfm
Nailed it! Brava, Jill!
The whole implication that Christian classical educators don’t know/are suppressing the ugly background of what they’re dealing with, and are merely mendaciously “sanitizing” it, as opposed to plundering it, is absurd, and ridiculous in light of North’s history as a reconstructionist. Since when is North big into “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle”
I readily submit that I have no education expertise and I know almost nothing about the Classical Christian Curriculum. I find myself disagreeing with North’s charges of paganism (as much as I respect the man), because I doubt most CCC educators spend time immersing their kids in actual Greek or Roman culture, which was indeed repulsive in many ways. Here’s my hangup on the CCC: Why Latin? It probably seems like I’m having a Zoolander moment here (“…But why male models?”) after seeing the rationale explained a few times in the comments, even by Wilson himself; but I gotta say,… Read more »
Seems to me, North is harboring some kinda hateful grudge.
Dr. North has responded again with yet another PUBLIC article today:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/12675print.cfm
Below are some nuggets of truth from the above linked new Gary North article on Classical Education that just maybe Mr. Magoo provided for us. I post this just in case there happen to be any persons/commenters out there that might be too distracted (with funny concerns that North’s inner thoughts regarding the naivety of well intentioned parents also must “arrogantly and condescending” consist of Classical Christian homeschooling moms as Dingbats in “denim jumpers”) to view his article in the best light. But, if North, due to his reconstructionism (as another previous commenter noted), is immediately cast aside for his… Read more »
North’s articles, and Brian’s defense, appear to assume that Classical Christian education is substantially the same thing as traditional classical education, with only minor or superficial modifications. I do not know a whole lot about the subject (I have not been an adherent of the method) but it was my impression that this was not the case. If Logos school really is using the very same methodology that caused the English public school system to sink beneath the intellectual “weight” of Darwinism, his criticisms are on-point. However, I am far from convinced that this is the case.
Sorry, meant to write in my previous comment:
Nonetheless, as Latin can be instructive for English, so can Greek be also – (indirectly) since Latin uses lots of Greek like English uses Latin, and (more directly) since English also uses loads of Greek.
@AustinT: “Why not teach Chinese or Spanish, ” Spanish, being a romance language, is descended from Latin. Why have the students learn the child-language when they can learn the mother-tongue? Chinese, being a language not spoken in the classical western world, is not useful for teaching students the thought-patterns and expressions passed down to English from the great theologians of the past who spoke and wrote in Latin and Greek. The object is not to teach people to be useful drones in the governmental-industrial complex. The object is to teach people how to reason, to think, and to understand where… Read more »
Many of Pastor Wilson’s posts are quite perceptive and involve careful reading, however this one (oddly, considering his own love of satire) ignores the obvious satire in North’s link, in which he is obviously mocking classical education as watered down and _not_ including many of the things he references. I disagree with North on much of his epistemology and his view of the value of non-Christian intellectual thought and thus his view of Christian thought that uses arguments made by non Christians, but this response ignores or misses the argument. That said, I do think Latin is greatly overrated (and… Read more »