What Do You Think About Classical Christian Education?
Over the past two decades, three of the fastest-growing trends in Christian education are homeschooling, micro-schooling, and classical Christian education. As such, when I speak at conferences and visit schools, I’m often asked about one or more of these topics. I’m quick to point out that the one type of education I do not support is a “one-size-fits-all” education system. I reject the idea that there is one perfect model or approach to Christian education that is faithful to God’s Word and serves every student and family according to their situation and distinct needs. I remain a fervent advocate for what I refer to as a varied educational ecosystem, a more extensive system of Christian schools committed to being schools of the Word, yet doing so in ways that best meet the needs of one or more distinct groups of students and families. Having visited and studied hundreds of schools, I can confidently say that there are many models of schools that can be faithful to God’s Word and flourish in how they serve students.
So, when people ask me about classical Christian education, I explain that I do not believe it to be the only path to fidelity and flourishing. Still, I see great merit in many things emphasized by schools that identify as classical. I usually follow that up by pointing out that there are varied and even competing ideas about education within classical education groups. For example, several years ago, I was in an online forum where one homeschooling parent was told by a scholar of classical education that it was not possible to be a classical education homeschooling family. They are mutually exclusive. You might imagine that the homeschooling parent disagreed, as do many others. So, with both of these points stated, following are some of my thoughts about the wisdom and merit of classical education. These words come from a 2025 welcome provided at the Consortium of Classical Lutheran Education Conference in Seward, Nebraska. Whether you consider yourself a champion of classical education, unaware, a skeptic, or an intense critic, I think you may find something in these words to which you can relate.
If we must, as is the custom and infatuation in our generation, create a quick and easy test for the fidelity of a Christian school, I would look no further than the role of God's Word. In James Burtchaell's book, The Decline and Fall of the Christian College (1991), he outlined nine stepping stones to secularizing an educational institution. More important than any other in his list is the step in which faculty make their first intellectual and practical loyalty to their disciplinary guild rather than to the Truth revealed in God's inspired and inerrant Word. Once that step is taken, all else will soon be lost. Dewey or Dante, Constructivism or classics, CRT or Shakespeare's "To be or not to be…", Postmodernism or Pascal, pop culture or Latin… While some of these are far better than others, all of them are not only stepping stones to secularization but stumbling blocks in the life of a Christian; if our hearts and minds are not enlightened by the precious Word that the Psalmist reminds us, is "a lamp unto my feet and a light until my path."
We Christians of the Lutheran strand have long been criticized as anti-intellectual for resisting the scholarly spirit of the age, instead giving preference to the Holy Spirit at work through the Word while also learning from the wisdom of those who came before us. C.F.W. Walther, in Are We Guilty of Despising Scholarship? (1875), responded to such a critique with the following:
"We admit further that as necessary as we consider learning to be, especially the study of languages, logic, rhetoric, and history, for searching the content of Scripture, we nevertheless reject any learning that [formatting adjusted for clarity]:
-instead of being a handmaid and pupil, wants to assume the role of mistress and teacher,
-instead of merely helping to discover the Truth contained in Scripture, presumes to sit in judgment,
-instead of submitting to Scripture's correction, desires to correct Scripture,
-and instead of remaining in its sphere, attempts to elevate the laws that happen to obtain in its field to universal ones and impose them also upon Scripture."
Or, in the bold and beautiful words of Dr. Luther in his well-known letter to the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They Establish and Maintain Schools, "I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth."
Luther warned that God's Word and grace is a passing rainstorm. He recounted instances of persistent rejection of God's Word in a community only to find themselves suffering from the vacuum created by its absence years later. Lutheran education is distinct when and only if it heeds the wisdom of these words and strives for a learning community where we explore a myriad of subjects while placing a high priority on the Truth of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
To those of you gathered for this conference, I recognize that I am "pushing at an open door." You are here today, at least partly because you know that "He who marries the spirit of that age today will die a widower tomorrow" (Dean Inge). You are in pursuit of education that is life-giving and sustaining rather than decaying, one that seeks and celebrates Truth that transcends, one that plants and cultivates beauty rather than revels in deconstruction, an education enlightened and informed by the words of the Apostle Paul when he wrote, "…whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things" (Philippians 4:8).
For these and so many other reasons, I consider each of you to be trusted sojourners on a good and noble quest. May God bless you on the portion of that quest that brings you to our beloved campus.
Disclaimer: Do you use AI to write the articles on Substack? The ethical use of AI is an important topic. When new technologies emerge, they often evolve faster than our ability to make sense of the ethical implications. As such, I offer this disclaimer to provide a transparent picture of my own journey and approach. I’ve already made mistakes, even embarrassing ones, but I will strive to quickly learn from them and provide a transparent view of my present approach. As such, this disclaimer will be updated over time.
The full initial draft (in writing or as an audio dictation), words, and ideas for my Substack articles always come from me. From there, I sometimes use AI for editing Substack articles. I regularly use Grammarly and/or Microsoft Word’s built-in Spellcheck or Grammar Check (both of which are a form of AI) to aid in proofreading and editing my work on Substack. In instances where I use AI for something other than background research or editing my original work, you can expect that I will cite or note it in the article.
I also regularly use DALL-E to generate the images for many articles. In addition, I sometimes use royalty free images. If credit is required by law, requested by the creator, or simply the courteous thing to do, you can expect to see the credits right below the image.
I continue to evolve in my experimentation with the use of ChatGPT, Grok, CoPilot (and various other ChatBot technologies) to serve as an editor for my Substack publications.
What does this mean? There are three common scenarios, though I hope to experiment with others in the future (and I will update this accordingly):
I write a full first draft in Word, Grammarly, or a word processor, and then submit it to the ChatBot, asking it to serve as an editor and give me feedback, akin to how I have one or more people edit almost anything that is published in my formal capacity. This is also similar to how editors review my manuscripts when they are submitted to a journal, newspaper, or book publisher. By the way, when I write for any of these partners/publishers, I never use AI beyond the basic spellcheck / grammar check available in Microsoft Word (or Grammarly if permitted by the publisher)—not even to use and then cite it.
I record myself speaking on a topic and then place the recording in a ChatBot to transcribe, remove disfluencies, and provide a draft transcript that I can refine before publishing it. This is where I’ve made the most past mistakes. Because the ChatBot is transcribing, it adds its own grammatical interpretations and even takes liberty with sub-titles, organization, corrections, and adding clarifying language. As such, I’m still learning to use prompts that ensure my words, voice, style, and intent dominate—while also achieving a quality, personal, but streamlined approach to sharing ideas. Because this is an evolving practice for me, and also because it sometimes creates a final draft that can be flagged as AI-generated content, expect that when I use this approach, it will be noted at the beginning or end of the article.
I use ChatBots to conduct background research related to topics that I’m writing about, akin to an interactive and advanced search engine. If there are quotes or unique ideas that I include in the article, you can expect that I will give some sort of citation or in-text credit.