Dr. Korcok's book on education: helpful but flawed; catechesis, Science, "Biblicism"? (Part 1 of 3)

Lutheran Education (CPH 2011)

      Recent research pointed me to a book that had some interest because of its subject matter and that it included a report of C. F. W. Walther's efforts in the area of Lutheran education. Although it is 12 years old, it treats a subject that is the heart of the upcoming new school in Casper, Wyoming, the Luther Classical College. The book is Lutheran Education: From Wittenberg to the Future by Rev. Dr. Thomas Korcok (CPH 2011, 298 pgs + Foreword by Dr. Gene Edward Veith.) Dr. Korcok is currently serving on the faculty of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada. He is also on the Board of Scholars of the Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education 🔗.

      Dr. Korcok is quite well read in the history of education and offers a comprehensive view through the ages. In his Preface he states "Thus, direction for the future is to be found in the sources and pedagogues of the past. To look back is to move forward." — How important was theology in education? He says (p. 4): “As the Reformation was primarily a theological movement, theology had a profound affect on how the Lutheran educators interpreted the role of the liberal arts in Lutheran pedagogy.” — What about the Old Missourians, how did they handle education? They went “...back to the Reformation era for a confessionalized model of the liberal arts.”

      As examples, I learned about the "trivium" education model: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Also about the history of "scholasticism" or how Aristotle's teachings were incorporated into Christian teaching. Most informative was the history of rationalist German pedagogues Pestalozzi, Fröbel, and Herbart (p. 111 ff.) who have had an enormous impact on American education today, the model on which I was educated.

      Most refreshing was Dr. Korcok's refutation of the history of Walter O. Forster (Zion on the Mississippi, p. 112) on the primary reason for the emigration of the Missourians from Germany. While Forster opined the reason was "Stephan's personality", Korcok says it was "the desire for confessional freedom". Even more, Korcok refutes the "popular opinion" among LC-MS historians that the Missourians' primary reason for establishing Lutheran schools was to preserve the German language (p. 227). — Curiously Paul E. Kretzmann, who wrote a considerable amount of material on education, was not mentioned.

     I really wanted to like Dr. Korcok’s work, but was disappointed in his criticisms of the Old Missourians. How does he do this? In several ways:

Catechesis (p. 57-61, 210-213, 261-262): 

      While he praises the Missourians for going back to Luther and the Reformation, yet he repeatedly criticizes them for what he states as deficient in this area. And he uses LCMS and a Harvard teachers to support his assertion (p. 57, emphasis mine): 

"…the Small Catechism is treated simply as a didactic [or teaching] tool whose only function was to impart theological knowledge, ignoring or at least downplaying its use as a prayer book.” 

Korcok offers no evidence where the Missourians excluded or "downplayed" the devotional or "prayer book" use of the Small Catechism.  On page 212, Korcok elaborates further:

"The enthusiasm toward the Dietrich catechism and its subsequent incorporation into the Missourians’ education system reveals a stark divergence from Luther’s thought whose understanding of catechesis was much more spiritually oriented. Luther intended the texts of the catechism to be used to develop a proper devotional life and a sense of Evangelical piety."

Again, Korcok offers no evidence of the Missourians ignoring the devotional aspect of the Small Catechism, only implying that the expanded Dietrich catechism was too difficult, too complex. He then quotes from Luther's Preface as evidence of his assertion, but Luther's opening paragraph states"

"The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach…" 

So Luther's first statement of the need was to teach, or didactic. He later speaks of the devotional and prayer life needs.  But if the doctrine is not right, the devotional life will be useless. This line of reasoning is typical for LC-MS theologians, and Korcok's appeal to the writings of Prof. Charles Arand (p. 58) is proof of this. — 

      In the final section we see where Dr. Korcok is headed with this in his recommendations for "Lutheran Education" (p. 261):

"Lutheran catechesis is best described as a life-long nurturing process that endeavors to enable individuals to grow in their identity as Confessional Lutherans. The aims of catechesis have not always been understood in this way. At the time of the early Missourian Lutherans there was a neglect of the original catechetical goals of the sixteenth-century Evangelicals. The Missourians’ catechetical program tended to be more concerned with the inculcation of correct doctrinal formulations and less with a reflective meditation on one’s faith. This is not to say that the Missourians were uninterested in developing thoughtful individuals. They wanted people to think critically, and the arts taught that skill; however, they did not seem to understand that their catechetical program did not fully support this view of the arts. This certainly was not the intent of the earlier Evangelicals. They believed that this catechetical growth is accomplished by the divine teacher working mediately through the Word as it is taught to the child."

So for Dr. Korcok, "correct doctrinal formulations" are less important than "reflective meditation on one's faith".  That is subjectivism, not an objective faith. (Yet he stated on page 4 that the Missourians went “...back to the Reformation era for a confessionalized model of the liberal arts.”) Korcok uses Harvard professor Steven Ozment to support his thesis, that "these [sixteenth century] catechisms served to develop a spirit of humanity [!] — they cultivated spiritual growth." (p. 262) A "spirit of humanity"?

      Incredibly, Dr. Korcok criticized the Missourian's use of Bible history in classrooms because "the nature of these classes further detracted from the devotional nature of instruction." (p. 213) I was shocked by this assertion!  But he refutes himself later when he approvingly pointed out how Luther encouraged the study of history (p. 271). 

      He attempts to recover from his criticism by stating (p. 213) “This is not to say that devotional and spiritual life were completely ignored.” How wonderful to hear that the Old Missourians did not "completely ignore" devotional life! Later he states that "Walther and the Missourians did possess this 'clarity and certainty,'” for "a proper relationship between the liberal arts, Lutheran theology, and catechesis" (p. 213). 

      The devaluing of doctrine in the LCMS has been most corrosive for its spiritual life. It led to the "Walkout" of 1974. It is especially ironic that Dr. Korcok would devalue the didactic role of the Small Catechism in a book entitled "Lutheran Education". — In the next Part 2, we present Dr. Korcok's criticisms of Old Missouri's science education.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Table of Contents: Part 1: Intro, Catechesis; Part 2: Science; Part 3: "Biblicism", Melanchthon, Papacy