Herman Bavinck on Pedagogical Principles from De School met den Bijbel

A rough and ready provisional translation of  

Herman Bavinck “Pedagogical Principles”, De School met den Bijbel (24 November, 1904): 1-2.

 

Pedagogical Principles

Herman Bavinck

Under this title, I can give a brief overview of the book, which will be published within a few days by Mr. Kok in Kampen.

In an Introduction, the necessity of education and pedagogy is first argued. Since humans are born helpless and yet, according to their nature, have a reasonable and moral destiny, education is necessary for them and can only be spoken of in relation to humans, not angels or animals. This education is part of the care that the young person generally receives, is therefore accompanied by nourishment and is also related to it. Since humans consist of body and soul, both nourishment and education are indispensable for them.

In the broadest sense, humans are educated by the society and environment in which they are born and live. But usually, education, rightly, has a narrower meaning and refers to the planned, personal, moral activity that parents and teachers devote to children to prepare them for the tasks that await them in life.

The intentional, planned nature of this education is further significantly strengthened by the fact that it has increasingly been transferred from the family to the school; for although family and school are closely related, they are also distinguished from each other in various respects.

From the moment that education acquired a planned character, it has also been the subject of study. And this study is necessary and good, provided that not too much or everything is expected of it. Theory and practice, even in education, as elsewhere, cannot do without each other. Pedagogy bears fruit for education and has value in itself. And it has become more important and gained more significance as the former unity in worldview and life philosophy has given way to various differences and oppositions.

Pedagogy, being not merely an empirical, positive but also a normative, constructive science, is closely related to worldview, theology, philosophy, religion, and ethics. It does not disdain experience but does not stop at the question of how education has been, but tries to indicate how it ought to be, and is therefore determined by the idea we cherish about the origin, nature, and destiny of humans.

But precisely on these highly important questions for pedagogy, empiricism provides no answer. Rather, we all view these, whether we want to or not, in the light of the worldview we have formed from other than purely empirical data. Everyone views empiricism and history with their own eyes and through their own lens. From a Christian standpoint, we derive our worldview from the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, the Holy Scriptures have fundamental and principal significance for Christian pedagogy. Christian pedagogy differs from other pedagogical inquiries not in that it is biased and the others are unbiased, but both start from beliefs and metaphysical assumptions. The first derives these from Scripture, the others derive them from the fluctuating philosophy of the day.

After this Introduction, three main chapters deal with the Purpose, the Starting Point, and the Method of Education.

In education, everything primarily depends on the purpose one has in mind. There has always been a difference of opinion about this. Among some ancient peoples, this purpose had a more religious, and among others, a more ethical character. Among the Greeks and Romans, education aimed at full citizenship. In Israel, too, education was national, but because Israel was the people of God, it was, as such, thoroughly religious and theocratic.

Christianity placed reconciliation in the community with God at the center of life, thereby bringing individual personality to the forefront but immediately incorporating it into the community of saints. For education and teaching, the Christian religion had great significance.

Firstly, it gave education a new content, namely an objective truth independent of humans; secondly, it offered in that truth a center around which all subjects of education and science could group themselves; and thirdly, it sanctified and glorified all natural life through this truth.

When Christianity entered the world, it soon degenerated under the hands of its confessors. In response to increasing worldliness, many serious pious people were attracted by the ascetic ideal of life, seeking the purpose of education solely in religion. This Roman Catholic asceticism later found acceptance among Protestants through pietism, Methodism, etc.

However, the general observation, not only with the eye but with all senses, is the starting point of all teaching and the foundation of all knowledge. This is not new but has always been recognized and taught by all Christian theologians and philosophers. Therefore, there is absolutely no objection to starting the teaching and practice of science with this sensory observation and using and exercising each sense according to its measure and nature. But the observation with the eye should not be privileged at the expense of that with the ear. For although the period of childhood until school age can in a certain sense be called the period of perception, because in that time the main material of representations is acquired, with which the mental life must later work, it is still incorrect to say that all our representations come from visual perception. This is not the case even in the aforementioned first period of childhood and becomes even less so when the child attends school and especially through the word of the teacher receives expansion and enrichment of its consciousness. And thus the idea that the child should learn nothing but what it understands also falls. For memory is strongest in childhood and absorbs the easiest. Especially the religious and moral principles instilled in youth work long afterwards and provide support in life. Therefore, Bible and catechism, religion and dogma deserve a place in elementary school.

Thirdly, modern pedagogy errs in that it wants to know nothing of coercion or punishment in school discipline. But this error is already beginning to avenge itself in the increasing lawlessness of youth, about which many teachers in the capital complain and which makes them long for corporal punishment again. Those punishments no longer fit in the new pedagogy, which has severed the moral bond between teacher and child. The Holy Scripture proceeds from a different principle. It maintains the right of punishment but acknowledges as its basis that there is a moral relationship between parents and children, between teachers and students. In this system, punishment is in place, but this punishment in school is again distinguished from that in the state and from discipline in the church.

After discussing the objective and subjective methods, the result can now be summarized. But this result, although easily deduced from the foregoing, is still highly complex due to the many factors involved in teaching, both from the side of the teaching material and from that of the child. Therefore, designing a curriculum and a course of study is almost an impossible task. Hence, for a long time, there has been an emphasis on concentration in education, and the idea of the eight cultural periods, the eight school years, and the eight teaching materials was conceived by Ziller. But these attempts to bring unity cannot be considered successful.

However, the idea of concentration is a good one that should not be neglected, and which can come to full fruition especially in the Christian school. For the Christian confession brings unity between family, school, and church; it groups all education with all its subjects and parts around a center; and it lays an organic connection between the starting point and goal of education through a gradual development of the teaching material and a psychologically correct view of the child.

BAVINCK