In partnership with the Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education, and with the gracious hospitality of Our Savior Lutheran Church and School in Louisville, the Indiana District sponsored a Practicum this past weekend on the benefits and blessings of classical Lutheran pedagogy. Sincere thanks to the presenters, all of whom traveled some distance to be with us for the Practicum: Rev. Stephen Kieser, president of the CCLE and parish pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Riverton, Wyoming; Mr. Nathaniel Pullman, headmaster of Redeemer Classical School in Fort Wayne; and Rev. Dr. Joshua Cook, now serving as an editor of academic resources at Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis. Special thanks are also due to DCE-intern Corrine Burmeister and to Principal Chip Davidson for their tremendous assistance in hosting the Practicum at Our Savior. It was a salutary gathering and a blessing to all those who attended; and for those who were not able to be there with us, recordings of the presentations are available here.
It was interesting to me – and noteworthy – that all three presenters emphasized the close connection between Baptism and Lutheran education, going back to the “Great Commission” (St. Matt. 28:18-20). Pr. Kieser urged the importance of knowing our history for the sake of knowing who we are and what we are about. And to that end, he highlighted the stress that Dr. Luther placed on the role of schools as service organizations of the Church for the preservation and strengthening of the Church through the teaching of the Word of God. Mr. Pullman began with some foundational questions that ought to guide and govern our whole approach to education: What is a human being? And what does God intend us to be and do as men and women created in His Image and Likeness? Then again, what have we become, and what is our starting point in the wake of the fall into sin? These are all pivotal questions, which the Church answers and understands quite differently than the world. Mr. Pullman then went on to offer some practical guidance and helpful examples from the traditions of classical Lutheran pedagogy.
Finally, Pr. Cook spoke powerfully concerning what’s really at stake in the purposes and efforts of Lutheran education, that we are engaged in the serious business of teaching immortal souls for eternity. He stressed the importance of words, in light of who God is and all that He does by and with His Word; and he underscored that the Church, as the fellowship of the baptized, engages in the God-given task of baptizing and teaching. Our Lutheran schools are seedbeds, in which the children are planted, nurtured, encouraged to grow, “fertilized” with the Word of God, and “pruned” through the discipline of His Word – in order to grow and thrive and prosper in the fruits of faith and love, unto the Resurrection and the Life everlasting. Pr. Cook urged us to be honest in our self-evaluation and self-critique; and where we have fallen short and not gotten it right, he encouraged us to flee to the Cross in repentance and faith. And to all these ends, the House & Home, the Church, and the School ought to be a genuine partnership.
What struck me throughout the Practicum – as I have recognized and tried to call attention to in my own efforts to facilitate discussion of Lutheran education within our Indiana District these past few years – is that there was no rhetoric pitting classical Lutheran pedagogy against traditional Lutheran education. In fact, as often as I have asked for anyone to identify the supposed antithesis between these two things, I’ve yet to get any kind of answer. Historically speaking, Lutheran education was a classical liberal arts education, with the significant inclusion of catechesis in the Word of God and the Christian faith (also taught by way of classical pedagogy). And as much as various educational philosophies and methods have changed over the past fifty years, it has seemed to me that we are still in agreement concerning the primary purposes and goals of Lutheran education, to wit, that our Lutheran schools assist fathers and mothers in teaching children – whether already baptized or in preparation for Holy Baptism – to observe all that Jesus has commanded (St. Matthew 28:18-20), training them in the fear of the Lord, in love for their neighbors, and in the reception and use of God’s good gifts in faith and with thanksgiving.
The good and worthy question is, in light of such agreement among us concerning Lutheran education, why is there such a growing interest in “classical Lutheran pedagogy,” not only within our District and Synod, but among a diversity of groups across the country? There are some “faddish” movements here and there, which tend to be shallow and short-lived, but the classical approach to education is certainly no “fad,” seeing as it has a tried-and-true track record across many centuries. At the same time, it’s not that Lutherans are averse to learning new things, maturing in our knowledge and understanding of the Lord’s good gifts, and honing our craft as educators for faith and life in body and soul. I’d like to believe that such openness to growth and improvement pertains to both “the old” and “the new” in pedagogy.
My impression and my sense is that there are so many challenges and demands confronting our schools, our teachers and administrators, that it’s easy to be distracted and bogged down by the “busyness” of it all, and to lose sight of those primary purposes and priorities that we are generally all agreed upon. And it is certainly also the case that our entire culture and society have been inundated with and immersed in a legion of expectations, philosophies, and world-views that are foreign to our Christian faith, if not entirely at odds with the Word of God. Textbook publishers and state governments are not taking their cues from the Holy Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions, but they are (both implicitly and explicitly) impacting and influencing our schools, our teachers, and our curricula. So, for example, our 2022 District Convention not only called for a study and consideration of classical Lutheran pedagogy, but also tasked me with warning our schools against the intrusions of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” at every level.
With or without District Convention resolutions, the people of God in every age and generation are called to self-examination, daily repentance, and renewed commitment to the Word of God and the work of our callings in holy faith and holy love. That is true for all of us, all the time, although it will look different for each of us in all of our diverse callings and stations.
With respect to “traditional” Lutheran education, it’s safe to say that ten of its hallmarks and highlights would certainly include: (1.) The priority of the Word of God; (2.) the centrality of the means of grace and the ministry of the Gospel; (3.) the primary authority and responsibility of fathers and mothers for the education (and catechesis) of their own children; (4.) the community of the Church as the fellowship and family of God; (5.) the importance of prayer and worship in the life of the school, as throughout the Christian life, also in the home and in the congregation; (6.) the aim of academic excellence, recognizing the goodness of God’s creation and His gift of life in this world; (7.) the pervasive concern for the whole person, encompassing heart, mind, body, soul, and spirit; (8.) the development of Christian character, virtue, and integrity in every student; (9.) a strong sense of vocation, rooted in Holy Baptism; and (10.) the encouragement and fostering of love and service within each student’s calling and station.
“Classical” Lutheran pedagogy shares all of these hallmarks and highlights, as well, as being of first and foremost importance. But in considering where a distinctive classical approach to these priorities might be found, I have come to recognize the following characteristic emphases: (1.) a prominent focus on the classical “liberal arts” of the trivium and quadrivium; (2.) an emphasis on truth, goodness, and beauty in the Word and works of God; (3.) the study of classic works of literature, music, and art; (4.) a preference for primary texts; (5.) the in-depth study of a few select works; (6.) the Socratic method of instruction, to train the students in logic and inductive reasoning; (7.) daily chapel with the pastor, along with an active involvement of the pastor in the life of the school; and (8.) the extensive exercise of memorization.
Neither of these lists is exhaustive; nor are they definitive of every Lutheran school (of whatever kind). But especially as I’ve been ruminating on the excellent CCLE Practicum this past weekend, I’ve continued to think about the precious things we hold in common. And I also continue to work and pray for the sort of productive conversation, discussion, and debate which will sharpen and strengthen all of us in faith toward God, in fervent love toward one another, and in the labors of our respective callings in the Lord.