CHARLOTTE MASON’S ANTHROPOLOGY AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS

FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION NATIONAL SCHOOLS IN AUSTRALIA

by

Tim Payze

Submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Education

National Institute of Christian Education

Sydney, New South Wales

October, 2011

© Tim Payze 2011

Abstract

Charlotte Mason’s primary educational principle states that Children are born Persons.

This potentially has significant ramifications for Christian Education in Australia. This

research project set out to explain the principle and explore the extent of its potential

impact. As Mason wrote a century ago it was deemed appropriate to adopt a

historiographical methodology, starting with an examination of her own writings. To

gain greater insight into her religious presuppositions this study also examines various

influences on her thinking and the dominance of materialism as her context. The

outcome of this investigation substantiated the value of Mason’s principle, both

biblically and in contrast to materialistic anthropology. This, in turn, raised several

questions concerning the extent of human capacity and the impact of the Fall on this

capacity, resulting in both theoretical and practical implications. The study provides

evidence that Mason’s work demands further consideration by practitioners and

researchers who identify themselves as working towards a sound biblically based

educational philosophy.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageABSTRACTTABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

How I Came to Study Charlotte MasonMethod and Justification

CHAPTER TWO – MASON’S “BIG IDEAS” IN CONTEXT

Stage One – The First Forty YearsStage Two – Compilation of Home EducationStage Three – The PNEU and House of EducationStage Four – The School StageConclusion

CHAPTER THREE – ANALYSIS OF MATERIALISM

What is Materialism?Extent of InfluenceHistorical PositionContemporary Position

CHAPTER FOUR – HOW MASON TACKLES THE ISSUES INHERENT IN MATERIALISM

Children Are Born PersonsIs it all ‘Good’?The Extent of Child DirectionWhat is the Food the Mind Requires?The Great RecognitionCritiqueConclusion

CHAPTER FIVE – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

SummaryConclusionsImplications

REFERENCE LIST

iiiii

2

27

12

1520333031

33

33343639

42

43515253555762

63

636667

70

iii

We are all too well content to let alonethat of which we do not already know something.

Charlotte Mason

Thank goodness I was never sent to school; it would have rubbed off some of the originality.

Beatrix Potter

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.

Galileo

My Grandmother wanted me to have aneducation, so she kept me out of school.

Margaret Mead

It is a miracle that curiositysurvives formal education.

Albert Einstein

Personally I’m always ready to learn,although I do not always like being taught.

Sir Winston Churchill

1

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

How I Came to Study Charlotte Mason

The journey of this Master’s study had its beginnings in some dissatisfaction between

understanding the Biblical story and its application to educational theory and practice. I

began teaching at a Christian school five years ago. This school takes biblical

perspectives seriously; encouraging all teachers to work collegially, engage with

external professional development and funding overseas speakers to address staff on

biblical perspectives. As a deep philosophical thinker I love this emphasis. However, I

was still not entirely satisfied, I still questioned the link between understanding and

application. It seemed to me that the two were not inextricably linked, that a teacher

could have one without the other. That is, a teacher could potentially provide all the

right answers to questions about the biblical story but still see the child from a

materialist’s perspective. This is probably due in large part to the fact that the bible is

NOT a teacher’s “How To” manual. Further evidence of this potential mismatch is

imbedded in the necessity for the National Institute’s very existence – to equip teachers

to avoid this pitfall.

I believe that this mismatch can be explained in three ways. Firstly, Taylor (1972)

explains the mismatch by way of contrast between what he calls a “teaching-based

system of learning [and a] resource-based system of learning” (p. 7). Where the

teaching-based system is arranged around “the assumption that children will get most of

their learning from the lips of teachers, [and that lessons/subjects] remain essentially an

appendage to the teacher” (p. 7). Within such a “system” the teacher as expert is the

2

focus, so potentially any biblical perspective will be dominated by this overarching

worldview or pedagogical philosophy, the view of the child is neglected. Taylor notes

that less than five per cent of the annual education budget (in USA) is spent on resource

development, indicating a systemic neglect of resource based systems that give due

recognition to the child and their capacity as self-educators. How then does a biblical

view of the child, as espoused by Mason, gain recognition?

A second possible understanding of the mismatch is elucidated by Hull’s (2009) critique

of Van Brummelen’s notion of education for discipleship. Hull does find much merit in

Van Brummelen’s idea but he also finds a potential pitfall. That pitfall is that “[f]uture

investigations… must surely look beyond the conceptualization and implementation of a

biblically informed curriculum model to see how the life of discipleship lived by the

learning community shapes the curricular experience of students” (p. 167). Here Hull

identifies that the teacher and school’s way of life can influence the curriculum offerings,

as much as, the philosophical underpinnings. Mason would agree and that is why she

was at pains to develop both a philosophy; and set of practices which matched that

philosophy. More specifically, Hull is identifying the potential that teachers might

operate with a disjuncture between theory and practice, not allowing enough credence

to the notion that our practice can impact our pedagogy as much as our theory.

A third point of clarification is found in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees in Matthew 15: 8-9.

Here Jesus condemns the Pharisees with the following indictment; “This people honours

me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, and they worship me in vain, teaching

as doctrines the commandments of men.” Jesus is saying that doing all the right things is

not enough, that, the heart (or motivation) needs to be centred on that which is right.

3

Jesus is exposing the potential mismatch between theory and practice. As a Christian

teacher we could have our practice seemingly following the letter of the law but if our

motivation or heart is not true then it could all be in vain. Because of the Fall all

Christians wrestle with this dilemma, the purpose of identifying it here is to confirm that

a mismatch between theory and practice can exist and to suggest that Mason has

something to offer to help practitioners bridge that gap (aside from the redemptive

work of Christ).

This dissatisfaction took a significant turn in the middle of 2010 when a dear friend lent

me the book ‘When Children Love to Learn’, (a modern day manual on a 19th Century

educator named Charlotte Mason) edited by Elaine Cooper. As I read the second chapter

titled ‘Children as Persons’ the answers all seemed to fit into place. The missing link was

there. “Here was an educator who actually addressed the issues of children’s

developmental and emotional needs and how to match children’s learning processes

with instructional methodologies” (Smith, 2000, p. 2). The possibility of a thoroughgoing

biblical perspective related to educational practice was encapsulated in that very simple

yet extremely profound statement – children are born persons. I was thus compelled to

read more of this and see if it truly was the answer to what I was looking for, and if it

could potentially be a useful guiding principle for Christian education in Australia in the

21st Century.

I proceeded to track down all that I could that had been written by Mason and about her.

I next read Susan Schaeffer Macaulay’s (1984) ‘For The Children’s Sake’, which has been

claimed by many within ChildLight Schools USA and ChildLight USA (two organisations

seeking to implement Mason’s philosophy within the school and home) to have re-

4

ignited the focus on Mason’s philosophy within education. Van Pelt (2002) claims that “it

appears that much of the current interest in Charlotte Mason can be traced back to [this

book]” (p. 16). Next, I downloaded and read the six volumes entitled ‘The Original Home

Education Series’. This series was available in modernised English through the

Ambleside Online website. Reading volume 1 of the modernised version - Mason’s

Victorian English can be difficult to read – I was satisfied that Mason’s philosophy had

the potential to address my discontent with the lack of an adequate link between

theology/philosophy and practice.

In order to continue to explore the potential of Mason’s philosophy, I wanted to see her

method in practice. To satisfy this desire I first tried to organise a visit to Redeemer

University in Toronto, Canada. There Deani Van Pelt was organising to digitise all of

Mason’s writings that were buried away in the Armitt Library in Ambelside, England.

However this trip, while exposing me to a greater selection of original writings, did not

afford the opportunity to see her method in practice. Instead I organised to visit four

schools, operating under the direction of Mason’s philosophy, in North America during

the September school holidays. I stayed with Bobby Scott who is currently Principal of

Perimeter School in Duluth, Georgia. He was one of the founders of ChildLight Schools

USA and founding Principal of the five schools bordering Atlanta, Georgia. He was

introduced to Mason through Macaulay’s book, had spent time with Macaulay in England

in the late eighties, been involved in schooling according to Mason’s method since; and

was one of the contributors to ‘When Children Love to Learn’. This experience lifted the

words off the page and revealed hundreds of students currently in love with learning

and life, as well as the teachers demonstrating a similar attitude. Further, they were

passionate about God, His world and His future and their part in it – surely an

5

appropriate summary of what a Christian Education seeks to be? (see Conclusion to

Chapter Four).

Whilst in America I also attended a conference with Elaine Cooper (editor of ‘When

Children Love to Learn’) as keynote speaker. Here I was gifted with a deeper insight into

the woman, Charlotte Mason, and specifically the principle, children are born persons. It

is down these two avenues that this thesis will now proceed.

1. Firstly, it is important to offer a rich understanding of just who Mason was in the part

of history in which she lived. Natal (although writing some staunch criticisms of Mason)

explicates the necessity of this when she states that

Miss Mason, being in the rather uncommon position of being independent at age 16 (due to being

orphaned), was able to attend a new teacher training college for women, later pioneer her own

high school for girls and eventually her own training school (The House of Education), national

educational organization (PNEU) and elementary schools. All this, for a woman in her time, was

especially extraordinary (2011, p. 2).

Chapter two is thus an explanation of who Charlotte Mason was, where she lived, the

influences on her thinking and practice, what she did and wrote (another extraordinary

accomplishment given the quantity of these writings and her being a woman, at that

time in history).

2. Secondly, the main argument of this thesis is an analysis of what Mason argued

concerning children being born persons and the potential contribution this principle can

make to enhancing Christian education here in Australia (and potentially globally) in the

21st Century. Like Smith (2000) ‘I discuss this educational belief of Mason first [as a

6

priority] because it permeates through all the subsequent educational principles’ (p. 5).

Chapter four will elucidate this principle, largely from Mason’s own words.

Sandwiched between Mason’s life story and the analysis of her main principle is an

examination of the philosophical school of Materialism. This counterpoint forms the

basis of critiquing the relevance and impact of Mason’s philosophy for today, because it

is argued that Materialism dominates philosophy (and psychology) at present. What

follows in chapter five is a summary, statement of conclusions and implications. This

discursive will provide evidence that Mason’s work demands further consideration by

practitioners and researchers who identify themselves as working towards a sound

biblically based educational philosophy..

Method and Justification

Before proceeding we some comment about methodology and the “place” of such a

study within the current research milieu must be made. Smith (2010) argues that today

“we find ourselves nonetheless in an academic climate that reflects a similar

antihumanism…influencing a more naturalistic understanding of the human species and

pressing a certain “biologization” of action as understood in the social sciences” (p. 78),

exactly the context into which this study hopes to speak. Our current context celebrates

the naturalistic or materialistic/tangible aspects of humanness, without adequate regard

for the supernatural, or even an adequate explanation of that material reality.

7

Further, Smith (2010) argues for a deeper reflection on practice in order to uncover

inherently held norms. He says that ‘this myth of neutrality, sustained by a lack of

theoretical reflection, serves to hide the actual (and questionable) theoretical

assumptions that inform social scientific observation and analysis. As long as social

scientists do not ask about the normative assumptions behind their work, they can

continue to pretend they don’t have any’ (p. 80). Our task here is twofold: firstly to seek

to uncover some of the normative assumptions behind the materialist’s theories; and

secondly to reveal Mason’s normative assumptions and religious presuppositions

underpinning her philosophy and method.

The chosen research methodology is historiography, which O’Connor (2011) describes

as “the method of doing historical research or gathering and analysing historical

evidence. There are four types of historical evidence: primary sources, secondary

sources, running records, and recollections…Emphasis is given to the written word on

paper” (p. 6). The primary sources for this research are Mason’s own writings: her six

volume Home Education series; Scale How Meditations; and contributions to the Parent’s

Review. The secondary sources are the comments on these writings, especially other

research theses and the two books For The Children’s Sake and When Children Love To

Learn. For running records we are solely dependent on the Parent’s Review in its original

and recent manifestations. Lastly Cholmodeley’s biography stands as the major

recollection.

Goodman and Kruger (1988) state that,

[h]istoriography is difficult to define and explicate…Briefly, the historian rarely begins with a

theory from which hypotheses are derived and subjected to test. Rather, a general research

8

question is formulated…In order to answer these research questions, the historian examines

evidence from both primary and secondary sources (p. 315).

The general question which is the domain of this paper is: what contribution might

Mason’s philosophy make to Christian Education National schools in Australia? It is at a

theoretical level rather than a quantitative one which may, for instance, involve case

studies of student groups benefitting from her approach. It needs to be at this level

because Mason is largely unknown here in Australia and so it is not possible to study any

students here engaged in education, in schools, based upon Mason’s philosophy.

Further justification for following this methodology is offered by O’Brien, Remenyi and

Keaney (2004) when they state that

history has a special role to play in academic research. It contextualises the issues being studied

and it gives shape to the parameters of the understanding which is offered…Being able to have a

broad perspective of the history [Late Victorian England and Mason’s Anglican heritage] and the

current situation [Materialism] opens the way to being able to make a valuable contribution to

the theoretical body of knowledge in the field (p. 135 emphasis mine).

Indeed, that is the goal of this research: to make a contribution to the theory or

philosophy that underpins the operation of Christian Educational National schools in

Australia.

With regard to the specifics of historiography as suitable for the particulars of this study,

Smith (2010) suggests that

evidence and observation and data cannot adjudicate between governing beliefs…What we need

to do, then, is not to pretend we do not have pre-theoretical assumptions and presuppositions,

but rather own up to them, put them on the table, and then critique and evaluate them (p. 80).

So in order to avoid excessive “coloration” of the data by my own pre-theoretical

assumptions such as may have occurred through typical action-research, I have sought

9

to “lay on the table” Mason’s own words which can then be critiqued and evaluated for

their own presuppositions within their proper context. It is assumed that the best

possible path towards revealing the “original” pre-theoretical assumptions, without

filtration is to go to the original source(s). This may alleviate the major challenge of

historiography which is “finding authenticate and credible evidence and objectively

interpreting it” (O’Brien, Remenyi and Keaney, 2004, p. 141). For these reasons this

thesis relies heavily on Mason’s writings throughout, endeavouring only to use

secondary comments on these writings as supporting evidence for the points being

made and to confirm or deny my hunches.

To this point a justification of the broad scope of this study and comment on

methodology have been offered. Now it is necessary to further explicate the value of the

specific question of this paper, namely the contribution of Mason’s anthropology to

Christian Education today. Smith articulates the debate of this paper by arguing that

when we disclose and evaluate the tacit, functional theoretical assumptions that inform much of

contemporary social science, we will find that they do not do justice to the complexity of human

persons…If our social scientific paradigms assume that humans are only “rational”, egoistic choice

machines, then we will never understand human social life adequately because we will have

reduced persons to less than they are (Smith, 2010, p. 81 emphasis mine).

The debate is between a narrow rationalistic (the word is used her in a materialistic

sense inasmuch as it designates the only component of human thought) view of humans.

Such a notion doesn’t adequately describe the essential essence and complexity of being

human, which alternatively Mason endeavours to do, in the context of education.

Further, in consideration of God’s reconciling work (2 Cor. 5:19), the reality of our new

personhood (2 Cor. 5:17) and the Son’s incarnation (John 1:14), Smith (2010) argues

10

that a more comprehensive evangelical rather than “theistic” scholarship is required to

“take into account these aspects of our reality. [Which]… licenses…a thicker, more

robustly Christian account of the nature of human personhood” (p. 88). Therefore,

Mason is worthy of some consideration, at the very least, to see what she does

contribute to the account of human personhood, which must be done via comprehensive

evangelical scholarship. Hence there is a significant reliance on the preceding Doctoral

research work by Benjamin Bernier-Rodriguez in the next chapter and the ‘treasure’

passed on to educators within Christian Education National from giants of evangelical

scholarship such as Fowler, Blomberg, Van Brummelen and Middleton.

Finally, by way of justifying the specific area of study, namely the complexity of human

personhood and its impact upon Christian Education in Australia, Smith (2010) has this

to say:

[I]f human beings are created, called, and reconciled by the Triune God, then that “fact” of our

reality is an essential and irreducible feature of human personhood, and any account of the

human person that parsimoniously excises this relation…will be guilty of insufficient complexity

(p. 89).

It is of just this excising of relations that we argue the Materialists are guilty, that their,

and any educators who follow their philosophy, understanding of human personhood

cannot adequately explain the complex reality of what we call a human being.

11

CHAPTER TWO – MASON’S BIG IDEAS IN CONTEXT

Charlotte Mason was a nineteenth century educational reformer. She was born in 1842

into a poor merchant family, living in Liverpool England. She was orphaned at age 16

and suffered from quite severe ill health throughout her life. She died at age 81 on the

16th January 1923. A life of substantial hardship reaped phenomenal rewards with

regard to educational philosophy, rewards still impacting educational theory and

practice around the globe. This impact is shown by this and several other theses being

completed in recent years, the growth of CM schools, the hundreds of homeschoolers in

America and the 3,260,000 hits when “Charlotte Mason” is typed into Google.

One way to chart Mason’s life is to consider the

educational developments, challenges to orthodox faith, social class constraints and gender

obstacles of the late-Victorian era set[ting] the stage for the peculiar process by which this

woman developed a philosophy and method through the course of more than fifty years of active

work as teacher and writer (Bernier-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 10).

Like Van Pelt (2002) we could follow Mason’s major accomplishments against the

background of her times. This would yield considerable fruit, but this thesis is concerned

to substantiate a solid link between how one can hold Christian principles and teach

Christianly. As Fowler (1980) comments “[e]ducational practice presupposes

educational theory which is always rooted in a religious commitment” (p. 28).

Therefore a deeper examination of Mason’s own religious commitments will be

necessary. The concern is with explaining Mason’s educational practice and theory

through examining her religious commitments.

12

We must go even deeper and examine the “personal evangelical apologetic principles

behind the scenes driving Mason” (Bernier-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 14). As Fowler (1980,

1987) argues, a sound analysis of a philosophy is only possible via an exposing of the

religious presuppositions and cognitive norms by which it is underpinned. Fowler

(1987) defines cognitive norms as “neither prior nor subsequent to our knowing

activity, but...integral to that activity. They are formed in our knowing….The religious

presuppositions, on the other hand, are prior to all our knowing [and are] founded in the

heart” (pp. 41-2). From this definition it would appear that cognitive norms (or what

this study calls, “Big Ideas”) could be more easily uncovered as they are a layer before

the deeper religious presuppositions. They are therefore only trustworthy when formed

under the direction of religious presuppositions acknowledging Clouser’s (1991)

‘radically biblical’ way of knowing (pp. 78-82). Such a process of enquiry leads us to “a

critical evaluation and re-formation of cognitive norms under the guidance of the Word

of God [as being] imperative if we are to develop a genuinely Christian educational

practice” (Fowler, 1987, p. 50).

Thus Fowler has mapped an approach to considering Mason’s life, which will be the

object of this chapter. The way to critique Mason’s educational philosophy for its

faithfulness to the biblical story will be to evaluate her cognitive norms or “Big Ideas”

(and discoverable religious presuppositions) under the guidance of the Word of God.

Smith (2000) uses the term ‘universals’ rather than “Big Ideas” and he states that,

Mason had developed a few universals…that are useful for us today as we seek to understand the

nature of children and how to educate them. One such universal was her belief that children

change and grow from within and not by teaching from without (p. 19).

13

Consequently, a biographical focus will need, where possible, to establish the how (ie.

influences upon the formation of these) and what (how they are articulated in her

writings) of Mason’s cognitive norms and religious presuppositions. For,

any attempt to tell the story of Charlotte Mason must lay stress upon that ‘life hid with God’ upon

which she based her teaching… In every life there is a different line of experience, more difficult

to follow but far more significant. The happenings here are the soul’s meetings with truth

(Cholmondeley, 2000, p. 179).

However, this analysis is a monumental task because no human, including Mason, has a

consistent set of assumptions, as

in spite of an overall element of continuity and consistency in Mason’s thought, there are also

strains of discontinuity and shifts of emphasis in the process of its creation, leading from its

beginnings to its final realized pedagogy and method (Bernier-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 14).

Therefore there will be a certain ebb and flow to her life story. Having said that there is

still a discernible number of trends which can be identified, leading to the conclusion

that Mason embodied four “Big Ideas”, pertaining to education, underpinned by her

religious presuppositions. Those ideas are:

Children are born Persons

Education is discipleship

The Holy Spirit is the Teacher, and

Christ is the foundation of all.

This study will, with Bernier-Rodriguez (2009), divide the development of those four

“Big Ideas” into five ‘stages’, each marked by transitions in her expression of her

religious presuppositions and cognitive norms. Those five stages are:

14

1. The first 40 years1.

2. Her writing of a series of lectures which were compiled into the first volume

called ‘Home Education’

3. The establishment of the PNEU and battle to establish a ‘liberal education for all’

4. The School stage, and

5. The writing of her final volume titled ‘A Philosophy of Education’.

Each of these needs to be considered in some depth, with the final stage receiving the

most extensive focus (in a separate chapter) due to its extensive coverage of the

principle Children are born Persons. In order to adequately uncover as much as possible

regarding Mason’s religious presuppositions. I am greatly indebted to the outstanding

work completed by Bernier-Rodriguez (and extensive personal communication), which

enables this task to be completed with some intellectual rigor.

Stage One - The First 40 Years

The key influence(s) in this first stage was Mason’s commitment to the foundations of

the Anglican Church of England. Smith (2000) suggests that “[t]his Anglican Protestant

background influenced Mason’s thinking and helped her develop her philosophy of

education” (p. 20). Bernier-Rodriguez (2009) sums up this time well when he states that

[a]lthough few and devoid of biographical details these early materials reveal limited features of

Mason’s early spiritual life…from the beginning Mason held the conviction that her work was a

divine calling for her life…[and] her educational endeavours [were] a means to revitalize the

influence of Christianity in England from within the institution of the established Church of

England (p 42 & 44).

Mason was a committed Christian who believed in divine calling and sought to pursue

such a calling. Interestingly her calling, in these early years, does not appear to be as an

15

educator as much as a revitaliser of Christianity. We shall see that the means to that end

becomes education. Further, we could draw from this some religious presuppositions

pertaining to dissatisfaction with the state of Christianity and a firm conviction that the

way forward is something achievable by input from a single woman in patriarchal, Late-

Victorian England. This last point dominates the approach that Mason takes to her task

and probably overshadows the eventual demise of her work within England, soon after

her death.

Other key influences stem from this Anglican affiliation, bringing Mason in contact with

the Scottish Presbyterian minister Alexander Whyte and especially a significant sermon

on the centrality of Christ. John Keble who introduced Mason to the liturgical features of

Anglicanism. Dr William B. Carpenter a Christian who was a metaphysical scientist, and

F. D. Maurice who excited Mason concerning a Christ centred whole of life perspective to

salvation. Reflecting on Mason’s hearing of a sermon by Whyte (July 15, 1875), Bernier-

Rodriguez (2009) concludes that ‘[t]his combination of ‘Deep spiritual life and broad

intellectual culture’ characterizes Mason’s own evangelical faith’ (p 46).

With regard to Keble, Bernier-Rodriguez (2009) states that

this deep appreciation for the work of Keble is important, not only because it shows his poetical

and devotional influence upon her, but also because it reveals Mason’s intimate affinity with the

liturgical features of the Prayer Book worship and spirituality of the Church of England, which

were constant underlying features of the life of her training college in Ambelside…[while at the

same time she] was careful to avoid open identification with any religious party, aiming to make

her educational method and philosophy as inclusive as possible, appealing to the greatest number

of people in the nation (p 50).

16

Starting to emerge here is the picture of a woman highly influenced by Anglicanism2

with a deep desire to revitalise a trapped church by way of educational reform.

Therefore it appears that ‘education’ here is related to living the Christian life better

rather than concerning itself with curriculum structures that dominate institutionalised

schooling, one could call it discipleship. Mason’s first (in chronological order) “Big Idea”,

then, is that education is discipleship, training in the way of faith and character

development. More recently, within the Reformed Christian Schools movement people

such as Harro Van Brummelen and others (Stronks and Blomberg, 1993) have argued

for a similar “Big Idea” under the term schooling for responsive discipleship.

While still holding to this notion of education is discipleship as important, Mason says

that “a work of Dr. Carpenter’s was perhaps the first which gave me the clue I was in

search of” (1925, p 111). That clue was that “principles concerning the operation of the

mind and the will could potentially revolutionise the future of education” (Bernier-

Rodriguez 2009, p 52). Here we see the beginnings of Mason’s focus on the formation of

habits as essential to education, as an essential to describing how this discipleship takes

place. Today, like all components of her method, there exists an institutional

understanding of this, but back then we must remember that, for Mason, discipleship

was synonymous with education. In addition, that discipleship was the domain of

parents, hence why her first volume is titled ‘Home’ schooling. It is against this backdrop

that we understand “in this view the training of the will becomes of primary importance

in the education of a person, even more important than the education of the intellect”

(Bernier-Rodriguez 2009, p 57). Her, chronologically, first “Big Idea” then is that training

of the will through discipleship is fundamental to education.

17

Dr Carpenter’s influence extends to helping guide Mason towards her first principle, the

focus of this thesis and what will be referred to as her second “Big Idea”. In Mental

Physiology (1876) he argues that the mind and brain are

intimately blended in their actions [so] that more valuable information is to be gained by seeking

for it at the points of contact, than can be obtained by the prosecution of those older methods of

research, in which the Mind has been studied by Meta-physicians altogether without reference to

its material instrument (p. 2).

Mason’s explanation of the principle Children are born Persons (her second “Big Idea”3),

as set out in Towards a Philosophy (Volume 6, 1925), clearly articulates this point in two

ways. Firstly, she argues for the proper nourishment of the mind and secondly

encourages the consideration of the whole person. These two points will be developed

further in the main argument of this thesis. It will be argued that Mason’s persons rightly

conceives of a Biblical notion of humanness because it considers the whole person, as

opposed to the materialistic (and what Carpenter is referring to as the Spiritualistic)

psychology school which dominates much pedagogy today. This tenet of Carpenter’s

physiology and the ways in which Mason embraces his ideas will be further explored in

chapters three and four, at this point it is sufficient to demonstrate Carpenter’s influence

on Mason.

Another significant contribution made by Carpenter to Mason’s thinking, to the extent

that it forms her third “Big Idea”, is his ‘essential argument concerning the possibility of

reconciliation between Science and Religion…therefore the scientific study of nature

should be recognized by the theologian as a revelation of God’s thoughts and action,

since God is not outside the physical universe but ‘embodied in it’’ (Bernier-Rodriguez

2009, p 55). According to Bernier-Rodriguez, Mason likewise argued that science, rather

than detracting from theology, can actually enhance it, while “recogniz[ing] mystery as a

18

necessary constituent of the Christian experience” (p 56). Later Bernier-Rodriguez

offers that “Mason explained that this new revelation of science was not a negation of

grace but an expression of the way in which the grace of God was manifested in a

‘redeemed world’’’ (p 60). This was truly profound given the dilemma faced by the

Christian Church in late-Victorian times, immediately after the publication of Darwin’s

Origin of Species (1859). Science and theology were seen as diametrically opposed;

evolution and creation were incompatible to many minds. Believers wanted answers to

the questions of how? And were not keen to dwell in the ‘mystery’ of the unanswered of

the faith position. This is extremely pertinent to our current situation given the focus on

exactly the same debate arising out of the new Atheism of Dawkins and others. For

instance, the Centre for Public Christianity here in Australia produced a DVD last year

titled ‘God Science: Creation, Darwin and the End of Faith’ with the introductory

question, “Can you believe in God in an age when science is arguably the dominant form

of knowledge that people trust?” In this way, seeking to reconcile theology and science,

Mason’s thinking was indeed ahead of its time but also squarely rooted in the issues of

her day. Therefore we would do well to consider how her philosophy and method may

speak into our current educational and theological crisis as it is not that far removed

from the crisis of her own time. Finally, this “Big Idea” reinforces the notion that Christ is

the foundation of all, that science and theology are His.

On the notion of the redeemed world, Mason says in Home Education that “we live in a

redeemed world, and infinite grace and help from above attend every rightly directed

effort in the training of children” (1925, p. 330 emphasis mine). Here we gain an insight

into

19

Mason’s fundamental proposition concerning the implications of Christ’s incarnation and

accomplished work of redemption, which points to the influence of the theology of Frederick

Denison Maurice…the conviction that God sent his Son to save the world, and that this had

transforming spiritual implications for the whole of life…and is the background of all [Mason’s]

educational endeavours. (Bernier-Rodriguez 2009, p 62 emphasis mine).

The alignment here with the foundational philosophy of Christian Educational National

(CEN) is unmistakeable. Over 100 years ago, Charlotte Mason (a female, in a male

dominated society), articulated a Christ centred, transforming, all of life philosophy of

education, the main tenet of CEN, as spelt out in their highly regarded authors such as

Stuart Fowler and Doug Blomberg.

Stage Two –Compilation of Home Education

In this series of lectures that Mason delivered, primarily to mothers, we can gain a

further glimpse into how her religious presuppositions and cognitive norms are coming

together to inform her educational philosophy and method. This stage presents a more

detailed outworking of children as born persons as the primary “Big Idea” pertaining to

education. This idea, in turn, is informed by three other “Big Ideas”: Christ’s teaching

concerning children; the goal of that teaching being discipleship; and the Teacher being

the Holy Spirit.

It is here that we begin to explore Mason’s “very high valuation” (Bernier-Rodriguez

2009, p 64) of children, an enhancement of the earlier stated “Big Idea” of children being

born persons and the source of that idea being Christ’s teachings. She says,

It may surprise parents who have not given much attention to the subject to discover also a code

of education in the Gospels, expressly laid down by Christ. It is summed up in three

20

commandments, and all three have a negative character, as if the chief thing required of grown-up

people is that they do no sort of injury to the children: Take heed that ye OFFEND not – DESPISE

not – HINDER not – one of these little ones (1925, p. 12 emphasis hers).

Bernier-Rodriguez proceeds to comment on this claim by reference to Mason’s first

principle when he argues that,

The precept that ‘Children are persons’ implies that we need to relate to children in principle with

the same understanding that we approach adults, the difference being one of degree in capacity

but not one in kind, or else we will despise them. The difference between adults and children is

not lack of personality but the lack of strength, knowledge and experience…Another consequence

of this high valuation is that children should receive from their earliest years an experience of the

best in nature, poetry, literature, music, art and human relations (2009, p. 64).

Here is unveiled Mason’s most significant religious presupposition, the foundation on

which her entire educational philosophy is based: the far-reaching implications of the

personhood of children. This personhood is not based on psychological theory but, in

Mason’s mind, on the teaching commandments of Christ himself. Mason argues that the

only way in which adults can not offend, despise and hinder children is to treat them as

persons – any other view circumvents Christ’s teaching. In Mason’s thinking any other

view doesn’t adequately acknowledge the redeemed, whole of life, Christ centred view of

humanness across the age spectrum. This view also hints at the spiritual nature of the

child and the educational task (the final “Big Idea”).

A more detailed outworking of the idea of Children as Persons can be further elucidated

by consideration of Mason’s own words in Home Education which are worthy of

expression here as they parallel the path of this thesis:

If a human being were a machine, education could do no more for him in action in prescribed

ways, and the work of the educator would be simply to adopt a good working system or set of

21

systems…But the educator has to deal with a self-acting, self-developing being, and his business is

to guide, and assist in, the production of the latent good in that being, the dissipation of the latent

evil, the preparation of the child to take his place in the world at his best, with every capacity for

good that is in him developed into a power (1925, p. 9 emphasis hers).

It will be argued that indeed Materialist philosophy suggests that the child is a machine

(“thus Man is but a thinking machine, his conduct being entirely determined”,

(Carpenter, 1876 p. 3)) and the history of pedagogy, as a result, is the search for a good

working system. Whereas a more biblically based view, like that of Mason, would be one

that treats the child as a self-acting, self-developing being concerned with that individual

person’s best. Furthermore, the notions of latent good and latent evil and the capacity for

good that is in him suggest a ‘deeper’ aspect of humanness, or what Mason refers to as a

spiritual component. She is not necessarily referring to the Holy Spirit residing in the

child but that humanness is not just a physical entity (nor is she using the word spiritual

in the same sense as Carpenter’s spiritualistic). Further her argument proceeds with the

contention that if the spiritual nature of the child is to be educated then education must

also have a spiritual component and here she makes more substantial connections with

the Holy Spirit as that educator.

In concluding these lectures Mason says,

it is a King that our spirits cry for, to guide them, discipline them, unite them to each other; to give

them a victory over themselves, a victory over the world. It is a Priest that our spirits cry out for,

to lift them above themselves to their God and Father, -to make them partakers of His nature,

fellow-workers in carrying out His purposes. Christ’s Sacrifice is the one authentic testimony that

He is both Priest and King of men (1925, p. 341).

So it is Christ the King who guides the educational endeavour. Still, at this stage in

Mason’s thinking, education is very much concerned with discipleship being the

22

framework for education, (not the KLAs of which we speak today). Further it is

facilitated by the parents, “it is his [the parent’s] part to deposit, so to speak, within the

reach of the soul of the child some fruitful idea of God…the living Word reaches down,

touches the soul” (1925, p. 344). Or in Bernier-Rodriguez’s (2009) words, “[t]his

foundational faith gives Mason’s educational work a particular evangelical outlook

revealing her method of education as one conceived in the context and for the purpose

of advancing passionate Christian discipleship” (p. 70).

Mason’s second stage has been characterised by something of a coming together of all

the strands of her “Big Ideas”. For instance, because Christ is King when we look towards

understanding what the child is and how to educate them we must look to Christ’s ways

and teachings. Especially His call not to offend, despise or hinder the children and the

acceptance of the spiritual nature of the person. In this way the “Big Ideas” are

simultaneously religious presuppositions and cognitive norms, for they underpin and

also are Mason’s philosophy.

Stage Three - The PNEU and The House of Education

Bernier-Rodriguez (2009) refers to this time in Mason’s life as “the beginning of a new

project which defined the rest of [her] life and brought her many important

developments and radical changes…[it was] the beginning of Mason’s career as a noted

educationist” (p. 72). Therefore consideration of how many of her established religious

presuppositions are maintained and enhanced and how many are abandoned during this

time is significant. The content of the principle, Children are born Persons is drawn from

23

her later writings which were penned under the influence of these important

developments and radical changes.

Two important contextual considerations (or influences) are crucial here. The first is the

position of women in late-Victorian England, Bernier-Rodriguez (2009) reflects that

this introduced another subtle tension in Mason’s work which would influence it continually:

How to present the new knowledge she was advocating without being perceived as a woman

stepping beyond her proper boundaries…explain[ing] in part why she developed her later work

outside of the formal structure of the Church of England, in order to be able to secure enough

control without directly challenging male authority. (p. 75)

This subtle tension Bernier-Rodriguez speaks of is Mason’s desire to embody the Biblical

principles she saw the Anglican Church advocating, applying them to education whilst

being of a certain strata in society that could not universally do just that. It is this reality

combined with the second contextual consideration that more comprehensively

illustrates what presuppositions were at Mason’s core.

The second contextual circumstance was that “Mason…felt herself to be facing an

impending religious crisis in which the very fundamental beliefs of Christianity…were

being put to trial…this issue was a matter of the life or death of Christianity” (Bernier-

Rodriguez 2009, p. 76). It is necessary to quote Mason (1886) at some length here to

show how, in her own words, she tackled both the place of females and the ‘educational’

need amidst the crisis in Christianity:

but let their zeal be according to knowledge. Lay the foundations of their faith. It matters less that

the lines between Church and Dissent, or between High and Low and Broad Church, be well

defined, than that they should know fully in Whom they have believed, and what are the grounds

of their belief. Put earnest intellectual works into their hands. Let them feel the necessity of

24

bracing up every power of mind they have to gain comprehension of the breadth and the depth of

the truths they are called to believe.

Let them not grow up with the notion that Christian literature consists of emotional appeals, but

that intellect, mind, is on the other side. Supply them with books of calibre to give the intellect

something to grapple with – an important consideration, for the danger is, that young people in

whom the spiritual life is not yet awakened should feel themselves superior to the vaunted

simplicity of Christianity (p. 204).

Here Mason reveals much concerning her religious presuppositions and cognitive

norms. Education is seen as the weapon to fight the battle, and that education is based

on intellectual works, or works of calibre – what Mason, in other places, refers to as

‘Living Books’. Her concern is that females can access such high intellectual education

and that the knowledge gained is faith or knowing fully in Whom they have believed. She

is, in the crisis of her time, maintaining two distinct foundations: education is first and

foremost about discipleship (development of Christian character); and the path to that is

through nourishment of the whole person via feeding the Mind as well as the Brain.

During this time Mason wrote a ‘Draft Letter’ which was largely a response to the novel

Robert Elsmere. In the letter Mason addresses the problem of miracles and, according to

Bernier-Rodriguez (2009), concludes that “the opposition to miracles in general, in her

view, had already been weakened by new discoveries in science. The more is known the

more miraculous the existence of ordinary things appears to the faithful person” (p. 88)

And, she adds that “science also is ‘revelation’’’ (Mason, 1896a, 25). This was quite a

phenomenal stance, given the recent publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and the

naturalistic interpretation of reality resulting from this. In contrast most modern views

of scientific discovery, on the whole, had seemingly disproved the existence of God or

25

the ‘need’ for a Higher Being as instead humanity could rely on its reason. This reality is

still prevalent today, articulated by Walsh and Middleton in The Transforming Vision and

espoused by the New Atheists in particular.

Another important influence, on Mason, at this time was a sermon by Eugéne Bersier,

who was a pastor of the Reformed Church of France (Bernier-Rodriguez 2009, p. 96).

Mason wrote both a translation and recommendation of this sermon in the Parent’s

Review magazine, which unfortunately was not included within her six volume

educational philosophy, and so has somewhat lost its influence. “The Sermon presents a

Christ-centred apologetic discourse against the liberal interpretation of the life of Jesus…

For both Mason and Bersier, the key to Christianity is found in the person of Christ…the

best education needs to interact with the spiritual questions ‘in the air’’’ (Bernier-

Rodriguez, 2009, p. 97). Again we see Mason’s emphasis on Christ the King as central to

Christianity and therefore also education, as well as the notion that education can

respond at a spiritual level to the issues of the time.

The crisis of Mason’s day was not unlike our own - it was a crisis of the very foundations

of Christian beliefs. For instance, in the face of scientific discovery beliefs can be

obliterated or enhanced. As Mason confronted this crisis I would suggest that she

remained open to the potential ‘learning’ inherent in scientific discovery whilst

maintaining, as a bedrock, her solid Anglican beliefs. This, in Bernier-Rodriguez’s (2009)

words

led Mason to produce an educational method aiming at a synthesis of religious and educational

thought and experience, which tries to be both, progressive and orthodox, conservative and

liberal. The resulting educational philosophy and method is her special contribution to the history

of Christian education. (p. 98)

26

In our day, Mason’s ideas afford a unique contribution to the goals of CEN schools.

As mentioned earlier the years 1887 through to 1892 marked a significant transitional

period for Mason. The latter two years saw the culmination of these developments in the

establishment of the House of Education at Ambleside. Bernier-Rodriguez (2009) says it

“marked the beginning steps in what may be identified as a process towards the

institutionalization of Mason’s religious ideals” (p. 107). The foundational discipleship

and character based education, using ‘living books’ as its source of ideas, now

transitioned to school. Not only did Mason believe she had something to offer to rectify

the ills of the crisis in Christianity in the 19th Century, she also had goals to enhance the

educational system by providing a “liberal education for all” (Mason, 1925 pp. 235ff).

Within these vast dreams she still held to “the primary idea of the ‘Kingship of Christ’

[which was now] complemented by the notion of the Holy Spirit as ‘educator of

mankind’” (Bernier-Rodriguez, p. 107).

Interestingly, at this time (1890), we begin to see the reverse process, that is, we see

Mason’s influence upon others’ writings rather than vice versa. Of note is a lecture titled

‘The Holy Spirit in Young People and Children’ delivered by The Ven. Richard Frederick

Lefevre Blunt D.D., Archdeacon of East Reading and Canon of York. Bernier-Rodriguez

(2009) suggests that Blunt ‘implies the recognition that redemption, not the fall, and the

universal fatherhood of God are the key to human anthropology’ (p. 109) within the

teachings of the Anglican Church. Later Bernier-Rodriguez remarks that “from this

perception and the Gospel declarations concerning children and the kingdom of heaven

there springs a universal duty for paying due reverence to each child in general…

according to the Gospel, children require reverence as persons” (p. 109). Mason had

27

stated such a principle as the founding principle for education back in 1886, which is

here being endorsed as a Biblically sound religious presupposition. With Bernier-

Rodriguez we would heartily endorse the claim that “this recognition ought to have

concrete application and direct bearing upon Christian education” (p. 109 emphasis

mine).

Sadly, this moment marks the apex of Mason’s work but also the beginning of its demise.

In striving to apply this principle within the desire to establish a universal education the

religious and Biblical underpinnings became lost. As Bernier-Rodriguez (2009)

articulates, “these presuppositions were intentionally toned down in the setting up of

the P.N.E.U., as it strove for a wider audience” (p. 111). There is more that could be said

here however it is outside the scope of this current study, it may prove a fruitful

endeavour for future research regarding the widespread applicability of Mason’s

approach within a secular educational system.

However, before most was lost another significant revelation came to Mason in 1893

while travelling through Florence. She visited the chapel attached to the Church Santa

Maria de la Novella and was immediately struck by the fresco which depicts the Descent

of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. She made “it an emblem of the basis of her

own philosophy of education” (Bernier-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 118). The centrality of this

revelation in Mason’s own words is,

This idea of all education springing from and resting upon our relation to Almighty God is one

which we have ever laboured to enforce. We take a very distinct stand upon this point. We do not

merely give a religious education, because that would seem to imply the possibility of some other

education, a secular education, for example. But we hold that all education is divine, that every

good gift of knowledge and insight comes from above, that the Lord the Holy Spirit is the supreme

28

educator of mankind, and that the culmination of all education (which may, at the same time, be

reached by a little child) is that personal knowledge of and intimacy with God in which our being

finds its fullest perfection. (1904, pp. 95-6)

The connecting points between this statement and the foundational principles of

Christian Education National here in Australia are many namely; no neutrality; all of life

is religious; knowledge is wisdom; and education is a Divine initiative. The significant

addition made by Mason is that, all this may be reached by a little child, when that child

is seen as a spiritual person. And thus all her “Big Ideas” come together, providing a

significant basis from which to build a revolutionary philosophy of Christian Education.

The extension of this foundational thought is that because education is spiritual, all

learners therefore must be spiritual and the nature of the pedagogical process must also

be spiritual, alive and not dead. With regard to the latter point Mason says, “His God

doth instruct him and doth teach him. Recognising that ‘his God’ doth cooperate with us

in the act of giving knowledge to a child, we approach the work of teaching with

simplicity, sincerity and reverence” (1896b, p. 55). This point develops our “awareness

of the exceptional spirituality of children, as compared with that of adults, [which] will

be consecrated eventually as the cornerstone of Mason’s philosophy in the principle

‘children are persons’’’ (Bernier-Rodriguez 2009, p. 128). The exceptionalness Bernier

refers to is parallel to Mason’s ideas of capacity, that is, accepting that children as

persons have a far greater capacity and hunger for knowledge and for the Spirit.

Building upon these foundations another cornerstone of Mason’s educational project

was the emphasis and instruction she gave to meditations. It is valuable to here quote

29

from her meditation on John 1:32 as it appears in the Scale How Meditations, for this

meditation reveals much concerning Mason’s religious presuppositions. She writes that,

Nature teems with teaching of the things of God, that every leaf on every tree is inscribed with the

divine Name, that the myriad sounds of summer are articulate voices, that all nature is symbolic,

or as has been better said, is sacramental…every beauteous form and sweet sound is charged with

teaching for us, had we eyes to see and ears to hear (Mason, 2011, p. 61).

Here, Mason is clearly articulating an ‘all of life’ sacramental perspective and agreeing

with the broader idea of God redeeming ‘all things’, not just personal salvation. She also

depicts the creation as a dynamic moment by moment response to the Logos, rather than

a mechanistic automaton response.

Stage Four - The School Stage

It is in this stage that we can begin to answer the question “if Mason’s philosophy is so

important and valuable to the history of Christian education why has it not received a

greater recognition?” (Bernier-Rodriguez, 2009, p. 153). The answer lies in the fact that

“as the school stage of Mason’s movement grew the pressure to show results increased…

the visible began to take precedence over the invisible” (p. 154). As Mason was pushed

to justify her method by test and exam results she could no longer give due emphasis to

all that has been noted previously in this biography. In Bernier-Rodriguez’s words, “the

exhibition of the achievements of the students became a normal necessity” (p. 154). One

could argue that indeed this pressure continues to drive educational theory and delivery

and thus also continues to drive ‘out’ any spiritual or biblical foundations and goals. It

will be argued in this next chapter that this pressure is the catalyst for the growth of

materialist psychology and its influence over education in the 21st Century.

30

Conclusion

Although this chapter has, at one level, only been a very extensive look at Mason’s

biography it has been necessary to bring to attention events that were important in her

life. We have also, at a much deeper level, uncovered her “Big Ideas” and the significant

influences in her life. Further, it has been necessary to quote extensive parts of her

writings. The importance of this is revealed in Bernier-Rodriguez’s words when he

argues that “the safest route to avoid misreading Mason is to pay close attention to her

religious presuppositions, which become explicit in her religious writings” (2009, p.

163). To have not done this would relegate this thesis to, at best, a detailed

interpretation of her contribution to education. There is a sense of necessity to be

producing accurate writings on her philosophy rather than maybe follow the same path

of the PNEU which diluted her philosophy to meet the needs of ‘measurement’. We

agree with Coombs4 when she says that, “I think almost anything she said did stem from

her religious beliefs” (personal correspondence) and Bernier-Rodriguez that “the

implications of Mason’s work are in fact potentially revolutionary. Mason should be

recognized as a unique educational philosopher, the framer of what could be regarded

as the only fully articulated gospel centred philosophy of education” (2009, p. 198).

That gospel centred philosophy has two important components which will be the object

of study in the remainder of this thesis. Firstly, consideration will be given to the

possibility of a Biblically based anthropology as opposed to a materialistic one. Secondly,

the two dimensions of that anthropology, capacity and spiritual, will be examined.

31

32

CHAPTER THREE – ANALYSIS OF MATERIALISM

This thesis is endeavouring to elucidate what contribution Mason’s philosophy might

make to Christian Education National here in Australia. To this point it has revealed the

depth and complexity of Mason’s religious presuppositions and Biblically based

philosophy. In this chapter the task will be to explicate how Mason’s philosophy tackles

the dominant philosophy of today, namely materialism. This will be achieved by first

defining materialism with consideration of the extent of its influence on philosophy and

science. Next its central issue, variously called, mind/brain or mind/body, will be

examined for the purposes of establishing the two points of contact with Mason. These

are the clarifying of what exactly consciousness is and the existence or not of

supernatural or immaterial reality. A more extensive response from Mason will be the

domain of the following chapter.

What is Materialism?

The following explanation by Vitzthum (2011) encapsulates the history and nature of

materialism superbly.

Materialism is the oldest philosophical tradition in Western civilization. Originated from a series

of pre-Socratic Greek philosophers in the 6th and 5th centuries before the Christian era, it

reached its full classical form in the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus in the 4th century BCE.

Epicurus argued that ultimate reality consisted of invisible and indivisible bits of free-falling

matter called atoms randomly colliding in the void. It was on this atomic hypothesis that the

33

Roman poet Lucretius wrote the first masterpiece of materialist literature around 50 BCE, the

7400-line philosophical poem De Rerum Natura, translated The Nature of Things.

Already in Lucretius' great poem we can see one of the hallmarks that distinguishes materialism

from every other comprehensive philosophy produced by European civilization before the 20th

century: its insistence on direct observation of nature and on explaining everything that happens

in the world in terms of the laws of nature. In other words, from the beginning materialists have

always based their theory on the best scientific evidence at hand, rather than on some putative

"first philosophy" waiting to be discovered through abstract philosophical reasoning (Vitzthum,

2011, p. 1).

Extent of Influence

Several authors would argue that materialism is the dominant philosophical and

scientific worldview today. “Indeed, the triumphs of science in the 20th century have

been so stunning that today a majority of professional philosophers, at least in the

English-speaking world, identify themselves as materialists of one kind or another”

(Vitzthum, 2011, p 2). And

[m]aterialism is now the dominant systematic ontology among philosophers and scientists, and

there are currently no established alternative ontological views competing with it5. As a result,

typical theoretical work in philosophy and the sciences is constrained, implicitly or explicitly, by

various conceptions of what materialism entails (Moser & Trout, 1995, p. ix).

This thesis is concerned both with that domination of materialism and the danger of its

explicit and even more so, implicit, constraints on educational philosophy.

Jaegwon Kim (1995), a philosopher at the forefront in the philosophy of mind, agrees:

34

there has been a virtual consensus, one that has held for years, that the world is essentially

physical... [M]ental states and processes are to be construed as states and processes occurring in

certain complex physical systems, such as biological organisms, not as states of some ghostly

immaterial beings [i.e. souls] (p. 579).

If indeed we accept this ‘consensus’ of the ‘dominant systematic ontology’ we must ask

how it impacts education. There appears to be two major explicit/implicit issues of

direct concern for Christian education: the nonexistence of immaterial reality and the

implications of the mind/brain problem. As Vitzthum (2011) argues “science has always

confirmed…that all reality is essentially a material reality and that therefore, … no

supernatural or immaterial reality can exist; [and that Materialists’] main disagreement

is over the mind-brain problem” (pp. 2-3, emphasis mine).

The mind/brain (or sometimes called mind/body) problem is worthy of tackling first as

it has immediate ramifications for the focus of this thesis, namely explication of Mason’s

first principle; children are born persons. It has ramifications as the mind/brain problem

is essentially a “question of whether or not human consciousness is reducible in all

respects to scientific laws” (Vitzthum, 2011, p. 7). It is a question of the essential

composition and subsequently capacity of the mind. Is consciousness (the mind as

distinct from the brain) to be understood as “immaterial” (Madell, 1988, p. 1), nothing

that is "over and above" physical brain processes (Vitzthum, 2011, p. 7) or “our likely

candidate for the soul” (Martin, 2005, p. 245). The question is, what, if any, is the

distinction between the brain and the mind? Materialists say the answer to this question

is ‘nothing’ as there is no ‘mind’ as distinct from the material brain. They argue that

“words like feelings, thoughts, desires, etc, need to be eliminated from our vocabulary

and replaced with precise scientific terms referring only to brain states” (Vitzthum,

35

2011, p. 7), such as brain arousal. Mason, influenced quite strongly it would seem, by

Carpenter makes a strong distinction between mind and brain, affording a spiritual or

soul complexity to Mind while allowing the brain to be essentially physical. According to

Smith (2010), a very helpful distinction for the “principle of sufficient complexity is just

right and is a welcome antidote to the various reductionisms [Materialism] that have

implicitly dominated social scientific research over the past generations” (p. 83).

Historical Position

Historically we have witnessed a decline, initially steady but recently gaining pace, in the

acceptance of universals which are “principle[s] which provide a basis for belief” (Smith,

2000, p. 20). In that sense universalas are synonymous with cognitive norms and

religious presuppositions when widely endorsed. Due to the influence of Enlightenment

thinking, beginning with particulars and extrapolating to universals and the inability of

this thinking to solve the French and Russian revolutions “humankind was not able to

establish universals (could not establish a basis for giving meaning to life) [and so] all

hope of finding universals was given up which led to a materialistic view of the world”

(Smith, 2000, p. 22).

As Carpenter (1876) argued, “but so long as either the Mental or the Bodily part of Man’s

nature is studied to the exclusion of the other it seems to the Writer that no real progress

can be made in Psychological Science; for that which “God hath joined together”, it must

be vain for Man to try to “put asunder”” (p. 2). Carpenter is suggesting that both the

mind and body (or brain) are indeed separate entities or dimensions, created for

36

different purposes, with an essential God given unity (such as Paul’s teaching on the

body in 1 Cor 12, and the specific function of each part). Mason in Ourselves (1905a)

examines conscience in both the ‘house of body’ and ‘house of mind’, dedicating all of

Book II to the task. This flies in the face of materialists who argue that “[t]he most

unimaginable intricacy of the brain would seem to be utterly inexplicable and pointless

if it should be the case that the mind is something distinct from it” (Madell, 1988, p. 2).

Carpenter (1876) proceeds to argue that considering the brain to the exclusion of the

mind eliminates the concept of will. For without mind “Man is but a thinking machine, his

conduct being entirely determined…Man’s character being formed for him, and not by

him” (p. 3). With regard to materialism he argues that it “is so thoroughly repugnant to

the intuitive convictions of Mankind in general” (p. 7). He concludes that,

this combination of two distinct agencies in the Mental constitution of each individual, is

recognized in the whole theory and practice of Education…every one who really understands his

profession will make it his special object to foster the development, and to promote the right

exercise, of that internal power, by the exertion of which each Individual becomes the director of

his own conduct, and so far the arbiter of his own destinies (p. 9).

Those two agencies of Conscience and Duty must be trained, according to Carpenter, but

this cannot occur until due recognition is given to the dual reality of mind (conscience)

and brain (duty). Only then, he suggests, do humans become more than just robotic

automaton. He says that “it is, in fact, in virtue of the Will, that we are not mere thinking

Automata, mere puppets to be pulled by suggesting-strings” (p. 27).

Mason was a contemporary of Carpenter and seems to have captured the possibility of

‘right exercise’, or Will, in her instrument of education referred to as education is a

discipline which articulates that education is “the discipline of habits formed definitely

37

and thoughtfully, whether habits of mind or body” (1925, preface). Later she dedicates

four of her 20 principles (the summary of her entire philosophy) to the “two secrets of

moral and intellectual self-management…the Way of the Will and the Way of the Reason”

(1925, preface).

This discussion exposes two central truths which, when applied to Christian education

(today), could provide revelatory pedagogical importance. Firstly, materialism tends to

eliminate an appropriate recognition of a distinction between mind and brain, so

reducing humans to mere automaton. Secondly, this reduction also depreciates the Will

which “if habitually exerted in certain directions, will tend to form the character”

(Carpenter, 1876, p. 26), which could be argued as the primary goal of Christian

education, when that character formation is about the character of the disciple.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, materialists say that no supernatural reality exists.

Our problem is compounded. The Spiritual part of mankind is eliminated, and indeed,

the existence of a non-material power directing humanity to a certain goal is also an

impossibility. If the implicit and explicit impacts of this school of thought are not

addressed in our educational philosophy and practice then it seems hard to speak of

Christian education. Indeed, as a Christian educator it is immensely distressing to read

that materialism dominates philosophy and science today. Therefore, this thesis will

endeavor to provide some alternatives to this way of thinking. Those alternatives are

wrapped up in Mason’s principle Children are born Persons and her moment of Great

Recognition.

38

Contemporary Position

So what of Materialism today? Does it follow the same principles and therefore are the

same historically applicable solutions relevant today? It would appear that the answer is

a resounding yes. In the concluding chapter to his book, Madell outlines the position

unambiguously when he states that

the materialist is unable to offer a convincing analysis of our knowledge of our thinking and of the

content of our thought…no acceptable account of intentionality, or of self-knowledge…[and] the

emergence of consciousness, then, is a mystery, and one to which materialism signally fails to

provide an answer (1988, p. 126, 130, 141).

The potential ramifications for Christian Education are far ranging and potentially

devastating. For if we define knowledge as wisdom (with Blomberg, 2007), then to not be

able to access knowledge (or consciousness) is to not be able to access or, at the very

least, understand God.

The solution that Madell proposes is that we are “compelled to accept an ontological

distinction between the mental and the physical” (p. 132) and so he proposes a type of

Cartesian Dualism as the way forward. This dualism recognizes “that certain items in our

ontology – minds, and the experiences of minds – have an essential uniqueness, a

uniqueness which removes them from the realm of entities” (p. 143). This is essentially

the same solution that Carpenter proposed some 140 years prior. The solution is that

the mind is something altogether different to the brain, that it is ontologically separate,

being the ground of consciousness, or possibly wisdom which is that component of

knowledge that reveals the story of the Trinitarian God of the Bible. The brain (or body)

is physical and the mind supernatural. Mason, we will argue, accepts and builds upon

39

Carpenter’s (and Madell’s) thinking by proposing how this understanding relates to

education.

In his final paragraph Madell concedes that the problem with the dualistic solution is

that “there remains the feeling that the person must be viewed as some sort of unity” (p.

145) and that dualism seems to instead “slap together” (p. 145) the material and

immaterial. Furthermore, “we may well not have the explanatory categories with which

to deal with the mind/body problem for centuries” (p. 145). As a Christian I would argue

that, indeed, we have had the explanatory categories to deal with the problem for

centuries. They are encapsulated in the Biblical accounts, especially Genesis 1 to 3, the

Creation of Man, Imago Dei and the subsequent Fall and resulting disruption to God’s

good order. Fowler has embraced these biblical categories in his description of

‘dimensions’ of the human, that the brain is the physical, chemical and biological

dimension of the mind, not its sum.

Martin (2005) provides a scientific solution to the dilemma of materialism and the

mind/brain problem. He states that, “these facts show that materialism is untenable…

[and that] once one abandons the narrow rigidity of materialism, many more interesting

possibilities open up. The mind (or some parts of it) may therefore be outside the brain”

(p. 247). He proceeds to articulate some startling conclusions given that they are derived

from the fields of science and maths. He argues that “the mathematics strongly suggest

that the Universe must be the product of intelligent design, and therefore of purpose” (p.

249). Later, he writes that

it is reasonable therefore to suggest that consciousness, being the only thing that resolves this

fundamental split at the root of all being, is of the Universe’s original and fundamental nature…I

conclude that the Universe is in all likelihood the product of conscious intelligence…At this

opening of the twenty-first century, the balance of evidence supports the reality of the Soul and its

40

participating in the existence of a Divine Spirit which created and sustains the Universe (p. 250).

With Martin (2005) we have “found that reductionism/materialism, though the reigning

philosophy of our time, is plainly mistaken” (p. 251). We propose instead a philosophy

and indeed a science that takes full account of the ‘facts’ which must include an

investigation of the Scriptural account of humanity. That Scriptural account corrects all

the errors of materialism, namely: the unity of the person; the existence of

consciousness; the connection between human consciousness and Divine consciousness

(Wisdom); and the distinctiveness of the mind from the brain within that unified whole.

The next chapter will now argue that Mason takes up all these points into her

educational philosophy and method, largely through the principle of children are born

persons and the revelation contained in the Great Recognition.

41

CHAPTER FOUR – HOW MASON TACKLES THE ISSUES INHERENT IN MATERIALISM

Man’s mind, stretched by a new idea,never goes back to its original dimensions.

Oliver Wendell Homes

Mason specifically tackles the dual issues of the mind/brain problem and the existence

of supernatural reality comprehensively under both the principle that Children Are Born

Persons and the revelation that came to her in what she calls the Great Recognition. The

first principle is extensively addressed in the sixth volume of her ‘Home Education’

series titled ‘A Philosophy of Education’6 and so this text will form the basis of our initial

analysis of Mason’s contribution to Christian Education here in Australia. The Great

Recognition is mentioned by Mason and commented on by others in a variety of

locations which will be examined to enable developed analysis of the specific

contribution of this idea.

A caveat, at the outset, is necessary. In some respects containing our analysis to just

these two areas seriously limits derivation of the full extent of Mason’s contribution to

the issues at hand. Mason’s philosophy is largely cumulative; the first principle, namely

Children are born Persons, informs extensively all of the remaining 19 principles and

indeed much of her thought not articulated under those twenty. For instance, her Scale

How Meditations on the first six chapters of John’s Gospel, although written as

meditations on Scripture, are also written by a lady holding to a highly developed design

for education which informs both her teaching on meditation and also the words

contained therein. She says with regard to John 3:8,

42

The religious formalist…and the devotee of natural science, two widely differing orders of mind…

do not recognise in themselves, or in each other, spiritual beings expressed, so to say, in forms of

flesh (2011, p. 97).

This is because they are not seeing their personhood, but rather are viewing themselves

through the mistaken eyes of the materialist. So to adequately detail her full

contribution all of these other areas/writings would need to be explored, but that will

have to be the domain of further research. Suffice to say that this thesis can but claim to

only touch the surface of the water, it cannot fully plumb the bountiful depths of what

Mason has to offer to education today.

Children are Born Persons

A person’s a person,No matter how small.

Dr. Seuss

Macaulay (1984) articulates this principle so well when she writes

The first proposition of Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy may seem merely a statement

of the obvious. But I want to emphasize that it is not some minor element of a greater truth. It is a

central truth in its own right, and if we ignore it, great sorrow and malpractice can result…We are

told by many in our generation that this small child is a cog in a machine, or even that he is a

possession like a pet animal…We must answer: No. You are holding a person…And that is

wonderful (Pp 12-13).

The argument of this thesis agrees that, although sounding obvious, a child is born a

person is indeed a deeply profound and revolutionary idea in the context of education.

Further the argument is built around the assumption that Macaulay accurately depicts

the majority perspective, namely that children are only cogs in a machine – and that that

43

view is fed by materialistic views of reality. Finally, Smith (2010) argues that “if God’s

creation of the world and the Son’s incarnation as human are “important features” of our

world then…a thicker, more robustly Christian account of the nature of human

personhood” (p. 88) is paramount.

Beckman (2004) asks several questions with regard to the nature of the learner such as,

“[w]ho is the learner and what is his or her relationship to knowledge and learning? Is

he basically good or evil (or both)? Passive or active in learning?...An unmarked slate or

having unrealized potential?” (p. 57). Then he proceeds to suggest that these questions

need a central idea to pull them all together, that the

capital idea [is] that the child is born a person – not an object to be manipulated as the behaviorist

believes. Not a rudderless and morally neutral explorer as the cognitive theorist would think. Nor

an animal at the mercy of drives beyond his or her control as believed by the Freudian theorist.

But rather a person made in the image of God, both active and interactive in his or her own life

and learning. Fully a person, not a person to “become” (pp. 57-8).

To that list should be added the materialists who view the child as merely a physical

entity, which in a sense is the meta-philosophy overarching the three psychological

theories mentioned by Beckman.

Now turning to Mason’s own thoughts, we can elucidate how this capital idea specifically

tackles the issues materialism presents to education. In the introduction to Philosophy

Mason asserts that we are in error (as are the materialists) concerning how we conceive

of ‘mind’ and the development of faculties which rests on the axiom that thought is no

more than a function of the brain. Instead, for Mason, knowledge is the sole concern of

education. And knowledge here refers to more than assimilation of a set of basic ‘facts’,

44

rather it includes knowledge of the Divine and a ‘living out’, similar to James’ idea that

‘faith without works is dead’ 2:17, knowledge without action is dead.

The key defining feature of this separation of mind and brain, within the unity of the

body, is that as the body requires wholesome food so does the mind. The mind must be

fed and children desire much nourishment; “the mind of a child takes or rejects

according to its needs” (p. 10). These two ideas underpin Mason’s principle of

personhood and birth the following salient differences in her theory from current theory:

1. The children, not the teachers, are the responsible persons; they do the work by self-effort.

2. The teachers give sympathy and occasionally elucidate, sum up or enlarge, but the actual work

is done by the scholars.

3. These [children or ‘scholars’] read in a term one, or two, or three thousand pages…a single

reading…tested by narration.

4. There is no selection of studies, or of passages or of episodes…The best book is chosen and is

read through.

5. The children study many books on many subjects, but exhibit no confusion of thought.

6. They find that, in Bacon’s phrase, “Studies serve for delight”.

7. The books used are, wherever possible, literary in style.

8. Marks, prizes…or other inducements are not necessary to secure attention, which is voluntary,

immediate and surprisingly perfect.

9. No stray lessons are given on interesting subjects; the knowledge the children get is

consecutive (Pp. 6-7).

These nine differences assume that no externals are necessary, no inducements, but

rather the role of the teacher is to prepare a generous feast of ideas and that education is

actually self-education. Mason says that she “believes that all children bring with them

much capacity which is not recognised by their teachers, chiefly intellectual capacity…

45

which we are apt to drown in deluges of explanation, or dissipate in futile labours in

which there is no advance” (p. 31). So education is self-education in the sense that as a

person a child possesses much greater capacity than our current educational practice

allows. Fox (2004) articulates this point well when she argues that “we should never

underestimate what children can manage as readers and listeners… The starry heights

of children’s abilities and potential” (p. 82). Or in Smith’s (2000) words, “[c]hildren are

born persons means that children change from within and not from without and,

therefore, are discoverers of knowledge not vessels to be filled” (p. ii). It is not saying

that there is absolutely no role for the teacher but rather arguing for a greater role for

the child. Are not the child’s many thoughts and questions (especially about God and

Jesus) “symptoms of a God hunger with which we are all born, and is a child able to

comprehend as much of the infinite and the unseen as are his self-complacent elders?”

(36) What do we think being created in the Imago Dei means for a child? Only a little bit?

Surely an aspect would be that hunger for God (psalm 8).

In turn this generates a different perspective on the child’s mind. Educators today may

think their task is to cram the mind with information but Mason instead would say that

“his mind is the instrument of his education and that his education does not produce his

mind” (p. 36). And later

a child comes into [teachers’] hands with a mind of amazing potentialities: he has a brain too, no

doubt, the organ and instrument of that same mind, as a piano is not music but the instrument of

music…but [the brain] depends upon the mind for its proper activities (p. 38).

Mason is systematically articulating a profound difference between materialistic

anthropology and her own, a difference both in giving place to the mind as a separate

entity and also in plumbing the depths of that mind’s capacity.

46

Mason directly deals with this dilemma when she argues that

[t]he world has concerned itself of late so much with psychology {this is in the early 20th Century},

whose province is what has been called ‘the unconscious mind’, a region under the sway of nerves

and blood…that in our educational efforts we tend to ignore the mind and address ourselves to

this region of symptoms…but it rests with us to evolve a theory and practice which afford due

recognition to mind (p. 38).

Indeed “the unconscious mind is a contradiction in terms” (p. 66). Here we see

something of Carpenter’s influence, as he likewise argued for the mind being something

more than a region under the sway of nerves and blood. As has been argued in the

previous chapter on materialism, this debate continues today, and scientists like Martin

(2005) propose a similar conclusion to that of Mason, over 100 years earlier.

We may ask, “At what age does this ‘mind’ capacity originate?” and Mason’s reply is from

the beginning, for a child is BORN into this personhood, they do not attain it at

adolescence or adulthood. For “[r]eason is present in the infant as truly as imagination.

As soon as he can speak he lets us know that he has pondered the ‘cause why’ of things

and perplexes us with a thousand questions” (p. 37). Likewise, Fox (2004) confirms that,

“we know so much about the incredible agility of the brain, [Mason’s word, ‘mind’] and

its need to feed on stimulation from the moment of birth (pp. 49-50).

The implications of this highly developed anthropology for education (as it relates to the

nature of the learner) are extensive. When the mind is considered spiritual and brain

physical and what we currently do, educationally, is largely physical: play, fitting

environment, beautiful motion, then realistically an extensive part of the human is not

educated. Instead Mason proposes that the path to mind is direct, mind in contact with

47

mind, that “[e]ducation, like faith, is the evidence of things not seen” (p. 39). Our

educational practice must consider the depths of the mind, of the bugbear of

Materialists, the unseen reality. It is here that Mason’s philosophy connects brilliantly

with Christianity, for Christianity is largely based on things not seen. The Christian’s first

and foremost belief in Ultimate Reality is given the name God, a God who exists in much

more than just the material world. The ‘mind’ (or consciousness) is our connecting point

to God. As Martin (2005) argues, “there are good reasons to think that consciousness

constitutes the common nature of ourselves and our Maker” (p. 250). Therefore a

Christian education must take into consideration the necessity of viewing the child as

sharing that common nature with our Maker – what Mason refers to as being born a

person.

Beckman (2004) argues that

the concept [persons] is not eclectic or arbitrary in its perspective. It is spiritual and biblical in

nature…Issues of community, fellowship, authority, sin, and redemption must be brought into the

picture of who the child is – and these principles are understood and developed in Miss Mason’s

philosophy’ (p. 60).

In Mason’s own words:

We have been so long taught to regard children as products of education and environment, that

we fail to realize from the first they are persons; and as Carlyle has well said, “The mystery of a

person, indeed, is ever divine, to him that has a sense for the godlike.”

We must either reverence or despise children; and while we regard them as incomplete or

undeveloped beings who will one day arrive at the completeness of man, rather than as weak and

ignorant persons, whose ignorance we must support, but whose potentialities are as great as our

own, we cannot do otherwise than despise children, however kindly and even tenderly we

commit the offence (p. 238).

48

In Philosophy, Mason illustrates the above points through the example of teaching

Geography. She asks,

[d]o our Geography lessons take the children there? Do they experience, live in, our story of the

call of Abraham? – or of the healing of the blind man on the way to Jericho? If they do not it is not

for lack of earnestness and intention on the part of the teacher; his error is rather want of

confidence in children. He has not formed a just measure of a child’s mind and bores his scholars’

(pp. 40-1 emphasis mine).

Our pedagogy is not strangled by any teacher’s lack of effort but rather by a

misconstrued anthropology or the mismatch between theory and practice with which

this thesis began. We have argued that a major contributor to the misconstruing is

materialism. The counterpoint, according to Mason, is an anthropology that views the

child as possessing much greater intellectual and spiritual capacity, the formation of a

just measure of a child’s mind.

That capacity of mind is not limited only to what we might label as ‘gifted’ or ‘intelligent’

children. It is within every child. Significantly, Dr Doidge (2008) is currently researching

and discovering that the brain (or in Mason’s words ‘mind’) has much greater capacity

than previously thought. In a summary to his book titled; The Brain That Changes Itself it

is stated that

we see a woman born with half a brain that rewired itself to work as a whole, blind people who

learn to see, learning disorders cured, IQs raised, aging brains rejuvenated, stroke patients

learning to speak, children with cerebral palsy learning to move with more grace, depression and

anxiety disorders successfully treated, and lifelong character traits changed… Dr. Doidge has

written an immensely moving, inspiring book that will permanently alter the way we look at our

brains, human nature, and human potential (np emphasis mine).

49

Clearly, modern science is here confirming Mason’s assertion from almost 100 years

previous.

However, acknowledgement of that greater capacity is not enough it also needs to be

properly fed. When this occurs information will be translated into knowledge in the

following manner.

The service that some of us (of the P.N.E.U) believe we have done in the cause of education is to

discover that all children, even backward children, are aware of their needs and pathetically eager

for the food they require…What they receive under this condition they absorb immediately and

show that they know by that test of knowledge which applies to us all, that is, that they can tell it

with power, clearness, vivacity and charm (pp. 62-3).

The tell it to which Mason refers here is encapsulated in her methodology as Narration.

Here we see how her philosophy and method are so intertwined, how Children are born

Persons feeds into everything else within her philosophy and method. For instance,

because a child is a person they have much greater capacity, that capacity (intellectual

and spiritual) when fed provides the right diet, and those ideas are assimilated into

knowledge via narration (which in turn develops habits such as attention).

This is opposed to a process such as:

We all want knowledge just as much as we want bread. We know that it is possible to cure the

latter appetite by giving more stimulating food; and the worst of using other spurs to learning is

that a natural love of knowledge…is effectively choked; and boys and girls ‘Cram to pass but not to

know; they do pass but they don’t know’. The divine curiosity which should have been an

equipment for life hardly survives early schooldays (p. 57).

And so education, according to this method, is self defeating rather than self developing.

Not only are basic ‘facts’ miscommunicated, but essentially the Divine is omitted all

together.

50

Is it all ‘Good’?

Mason’s anthropology as outlined above is worthy of much consideration. However

there is still a significant unanswered question that people like Natal (2000) have posed

in the midst of this discussion. Natal argues that Mason contradicts the doctrine of total

depravity when she states, in her second principle, that children are neither good nor

bad. The question is whether or not the personhood capacity, or the journey of the mind,

has any potential for bad or evil, or whether Mason viewed it as a self-correcting, even

‘perfect’, process. This question must be addressed if one is to adequately argue for the

Christian foundations of her philosophy, as it potentially undermines a foundational

doctrine of the Church.

Chapter 3 of Philosophy tackles this concern directly. Mason opens the chapter saying

that

[i]magination may become like that cave Ezekiel tells wherein were all manner of unseemly and

evil things; it may be a temple wherein self is glorified; it may be a chamber of horrors and

dangers; but it may also be a House Beautiful. It is enough for us to remember that imagination is

stored with those images supplied day by day (p. 55).

For Mason the issue is not so much whether we possess the capacity for evil; she clearly

affirms that reality. Indeed, “[i]n these days when Reason is deified…it is necessary that

every child should be trained to recognize fallacious reasoning and above all to know

that a man’s reason is his servant and not his master” (p. 55). From this premise Mason

develops one of her main instruments of education, Education is a Discipline. The chief

51

concern of that instrument is the development of habits and control of the Will. Such

that “if a schoolboy is to be guided into the justice of thought from which sound opinions

emanate, how much more does he need guidance in arriving at that justice in motive

which we call sound principles” (p. 62), again she draws on the writings of Carpenter.

The Extent of Child Direction

A subsequent question could be asked concerning how much control children have in

this educational system. It is, according to Mason, a given that “[a]ll schoolwork should

be conducted in such a manner that children are aware of the responsibility of learning;

it is their business to know that which has been taught” ... “As we have already urged,

there is but one right way, that is, children must do the work for themselves” (p. 74, 99).

In, doing the work for themselves, Mason means that they develop the habit of attention

which in practical terms means that subject matter is not repeated, students must listen

the first time. And

[t]o return to our method of employing attention; it is not a casual matter, a convenient, almost

miraculous way of covering the ground, of getting children to know certainly and lastingly a

surprising amount; all this is to the good, but it is more, a root principle vital to education (p. 76).

Therefore Mason would differ with Maria Montessori on this point, as she is arguing not

so much for children controlling the process but for them controlling themselves within

the process. Children are responsible learners. The focus here is not so much the

development of a better method but, in Mason’s words, “an adequate conception of

children, - children, merely as human beings, whether brilliant or dull, precocious or

backward” (p. 80).

52

This does not imply that the opposite is true either, that the educational process is

entirely under the control of the teacher. For

[a] scheme which throws the whole burden of education on the teacher, which exalts the

personality of the teacher as the chief agent in education, which affords ingenious, interesting,

and more or less creative work to a vast number of highly intelligent and devoted persons, whose

passionate hope is to leave the world a little better than they found it by means of those children

whom they have raised to a higher level, must needs make a wide and successful appeal…Later, it

gives rise to dismay and anxiety among thoughtful people (pp. 117-8).

So Mason is advocating for an educational system that provides opportunities for

students and teachers alike to take the responsibility that is their due. The student’s

responsibility is developing habits, such as attention, which enable learning. The

teacher’s responsibility is provision of a grand banquet of ideas within an environment

that enables learning.

What is the Food the Mind Requires?

Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.

Joseph Addison

Mason asserts that whatever is fed to the mind must generate knowledge for

“[k]nowledge is to us as our mother’s milk” (p. 89). According to Mason the best food

that generates that knowledge is living ideas. But

[w]hat is an idea? We ask, and find ourselves plunged beyond our depth. A live thing of the mind…

We all know how an idea ‘strikes’, ‘seizes’, ‘catches hold of’, ‘impresses’ us and at last, if it be big

enough, ‘possesses’ us; in a word, behaves like an entity (p. 105).

53

That is why it is living for it behaves like an entity. And children must be well fed, “we

must disabuse our minds of the theory that the functions of education are in the main

gymnastic, a continual drawing out without a corresponding act of putting in” (p. 108).

Here again Mason draws together the loose strands of the issues associated with

materialism and the tenets of her philosophy. She might find some sympathizers

amongst the materialists when she exclaims that “[w]e are more in the dark about Mind

than about Mars!” (p. 117). Again, an extraordinary statement given it was written over

100 years ago, and we knew precious little about Mars at that point. She differs from the

materialists on her next point that the “mind is a ‘spiritual organism’” (p. 117). It is this

deep mystery of the substance of the mind and its spiritual form that leads Mason to say

that

by an analogy with Body we conclude that Mind requires regular and sufficient sustenance; and

that this sustenance is afforded by ideas…That children like feeble and tedious oral lessons, feeble

and tedious story books, does not at all prove that these are wholesome food; they like lollipops

but cannot live upon them; yet there is a serious attempt in certain schools to supply the

intellectual, moral, and religious needs of children by appropriate ‘sweetmeats’ (p. 117).

Mason’s alternative view of anthropology, especially as it pertains to the Mind requires a

vastly different approach to education, one void of unnecessary ‘sweetmeats’.

As her philosophy sequentially unfolds she answers the next obvious question

concerning where those ideas are to be sourced. Throughout all six volumes of her Home

Education series Mason repeats the claim that “the ideas required for the sustenance of

children are to be found mainly in books of literary quality” (p. 117), in other places

‘living books’. The genius of her method is clear for all to see as she explores every path

that opens up from her original premise – that children are born persons. Mason’s

54

philosophy is so much more than a mere philosophy. She carefully articulates a series of

instruments and practices that can be adopted to fully support this philosophical base.

The Great Recognition

The implications of the child being born a person extend to the identification of the Holy

Spirit’s role in education. For if we accept that the child as person has both a

material/physical body/brain and an immaterial or spiritual Mind then to ignore the

Spirit is to ignore the potential benefits of the designation we have been at pains to

substantiate. Further, as has been mentioned, Mason’s entire philosophy and practice is

cumulative, building upon itself from the first principle to the last. The first principle of

personhood naturally begs the question regarding what place the Holy Spirit has in the

spiritual/non-material part of the human, and indeed, the role the Spirit plays in the

material part of the human. Mason would argue that “God the Holy Spirit is Himself,

personally, the Imparter of knowledge, the Instructor of youth, the Inspirer of genius”

(1896, pp. 270-1)

The Great Recognition came to Mason while travelling through Italy. She paid a visit to

the Spanish Chapel attached to the Church of Saint Maria Novella in Florence. The Fresco

painted by Simon Memmi entitled The Descent of the Holy Spirit was the specific catalyst

of the recognition. For Mason it articulated the Florentine belief of the Middle Ages that

“the seven Liberal Arts were fully under the direct outpouring of the Holy Ghost…every

fruitful idea, every original conception, whether in Euclid, or grammar, or music, was a

direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit” (1896, p. 271).

55

The Descent of the Holy SpiritBy Taddeo Gaddi and Simone Memmi

At the top is the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, descending down upon the Disciples.

Here, the next level is the seven figures who represent the seven liberal arts. Or the whole spectrum of ‘education’.

Under them and beside the seated St. Thomas Aquinas are the pagan intellectuals.

Finally, these people represent the Theological and Natural Sciences

From the inscription on the book that Thomas Aquinas is holding, when translated into

English reads: “I willed, and Sense was given me. I prayed, and the Spirit of Wisdom

came upon me And I set her before, kingdoms and thrones” Wisdom 7:7-8, Bernier-

Rodriguez (2009) argues that “the Holy Spirit is seen as the giver of wisdom, which is

the precondition for all knowledge, which comes as a gift of grace to all human kind” (pp.

121-2).

56

This conception of the Holy Spirit being an infinitesimal source of knowledge “with each

single child” (Mason, 1896, p. 273) extends our anthropology beyond the limits of

materialism. Because of materialism’s inadequate conception of humanness “[w]e do not

sufficiently rejoice in the wealth that the infinite nature of our God brings to each of us”

(1896, p. 273). In other words, Mason’s Great Recognition accounts for the extra

dimension of humanness that the principle of personhood affords. The central idea here

is that if the teacher is the Holy Spirit then Christian Education must allow for such

teaching to take place if it is to properly be called Christian Education. In other words,

“the new thing is, that grammar, for example, may be taught in such a way as to invite

and obtain co-operation of the Divine Teacher, or in such a way as to exclude His

illuminating presence from the schoolroom” (1896, p. 274). To not see the child as a

person can exclude God’s illuminating presence.

Critique

There are potentially still two unanswered questions here; is Mason dualistic with

regard to integrality of the person? And, what are the consequences of the fall with

regard to capacity?

On the first point there initially does seem to be a clear suggestion of duality in Mason’s

writing. She makes a distinction between the brain and the mind, suggesting different

food sources and functions. The following words from Ourselves betray just this

apparent duality;

57

the whole question of self-management and self-perception implies a dual self. There is a self who

reverences and a self who is reverenced, a self who knows and a self who is known, a self who

controls and a self who is controlled (1905a, introduction).

Why she begins her fourth volume with such a clear statement of duality is answered in

the very next line. She argues that “this, of a dual self, is perhaps our most intimate and

our least-acknowledged consciousness” (1905a, introduction). It is the lack of

recognition of the positive side of this duality that demands Mason examine it closely.

When one wants to explain all the component parts of a whole they need to describe

each part separately. Further, if one (or more) of those parts has been neglected or

forgotten about then any emphasis on it will seem excessive or unbalanced. This is the

case with Mason’s description of the mind (especially given Materialism’s neglect of it)

and her apparent overemphasis on its function and capacity. In Ourselves Mason offers

an extended study of just this dilemma.

The volume identifies a unity within this diversity through its chapter breakdowns. The

opening section discusses the ‘Kingdom of Mansoul’, while the remainder unpacks the

four ‘chambers’ or ‘houses’ of that kingdom, namely, ‘Body’, ‘Mind’, ‘Heart’ and ‘Soul’.

And Mason states that

[y]ou must not understand that all these are different parts of a person; but that they are different

powers which every person has, and which every person must exercise, in order to make the

most of that great inheritance which he is born to as a human being (1905a, p. 10).

The key to understanding why Mason does explain the nature of the human in this

divided manner is presented in that last sentence – the need for the person to receive

their “great inheritance”.

58

The distinction is made not to be dualistic but rather to shift our emphasis. Mason

asserts in her second principle that children are born neither good nor bad but with the

potential for both. Some such as Natal (2000) have argued that this suggests a denial of

our total depravity. However, like the claim that she is dualistic this claim misses her

point. Rather, Mason’s point is that for too long we have neglected the reality of our

‘goodness’ or indeed ‘capacity’. In other words, it is not an adequate Biblical

anthropology to convict us of total badness – clearly there are many examples in the

Bible of people who did good things, for example; Noah, Abraham, Moses, Bathsheeba,

Ruth, David, Paul and Peter. The doctrine of total depravity should rightly be understood

as lack of capacity to achieve salvation rather than a total absence of goodness. It is the

need to re-capture that potential for goodness that presses Mason to distinguish

between the good and bad nature of humans and possibly overemphasise the former.

It seems fitting to close off this discussion with Mason’s own words again;

perhaps if we say that the one is the unsatisfactory self, which we produce in our lives; the other,

the self of great and beautiful possibilities, which we are aware of as an integral part of us, it is all

we can do towards grasping this evasive condition of our being. It may help us to regard for a

moment the human soul as a vast estate which it rests with us to realise (introduction).

Hopefully, Mason’s writings may assist us all to realise that vastness of our souls.

With regard to the second question, the consequences of the Fall cannot be

underestimated. With regard to their impact on Mason’s notion of increased or greater

capacity she says that,

boys and girls, youths and maidens, have as much capacity to apprehend what is presented to

their minds as have their elders; and, like their elders, they take great pleasure and interest in an

59

appeal to their understanding which discovers to them the ground-plan of human nature – a

common possession.

The point of view taken in this volume is, that all beautiful and noble possibilities are present in

everyone; but that each person is subject to assault and hindrance in various ways, of which he

should be aware in order that he may watch and pray (1905a, Preface).

Clearly Mason maintains her conviction that the child’s capacity is far greater than

hereto acknowledged. But more importantly she does state that the Fall has a

devastating impact because of its assaults and hindrances. The impact is so great that we

are implored to “watch and pray” (1905a, Preface). Interestingly, she is not arguing that

the Fall diminishes capacity, but rather that that capacity can be attacked, such as by the

materialists’ denial of its existence.

Later Mason goes as far as suggesting that she needs to address matters of the Fall’s

impact on our relations with God because that knowledge is our sole purpose when she

says,

What is sometimes described as the ‘immanence of God’; the capacity of man for relations with

the divine; and the maimed and incomplete character of the life in which these relations are not

fulfilled, are touched upon, because these matters belong to a knowledge which is the ‘chief end of

man’ (1905a, Preface).

Again, she does not directly link the impact of the Fall to diminished capacity but rather

an emphasis on educational philosophy embracing rather than denying that reality.

Just possibly the impact of the Fall is most strongly felt in the educators rather than the

child. Maybe the issue is the distorted labelling of children into those with or without

learning difficulties before they have a chance to demonstrate their capacity and hunger

for knowledge, or teachers “getting in between them and the source to spoil it all”

60

(Cooper, 2004, p. 42). It may not be that surprising that much of Mason’s greatest

‘results’ were in settings of disadvantage.

Cooper (2004) relays the following story about Marion Berry and the “typically less

educable children” (p. 47) from a nearby residential facility.

They had had unhappy experiences previously and were in institutional care. Many were behind

in schoolwork…[but] Marion had been wisely told earlier that all children need nourishing – all

“are hungry”…Her example is a shining one. The very best should not be for the elite. Those who

have been neglected, not nourished with life’s richness, need the PNEU [Mason] approach (pp. 47-8).

What a potential challenge to educators. Maybe the impact of the Fall is felt most

strongly in our view of the child. Maybe we are underselling the child and that is

contributing to a potentially vicious circle where the capacity or lack thereof is nothing

more than an inadequate self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not to deny that hindrances to

learning exist, both internal and external to the individual, but rather to pose the

question as to how much are these hindrances of our own making. For if we consider on

what basis we diagnose a child with a learning difficulty, we may discover that it is

purely a measure of how poorly they fit the current educational system with all its

limitations. Jesus saw the potential and implored us not to hinder the child. Perhaps

through our narrow view of ‘suitable’ capacity we are hindering these persons.

Finally, I wonder if our classification of capacity needs a re-examination. I spent four

years working at a special school where every student was classified as possessing a dis-

ability. There I met two very capable students who challenged me to re-examine my

definition of dis-ability and capacity. One student could not do reasonably basic

arithmetic but could rattle off any AFL score in an instant. Not only that, he could

61

remember minute detail of every game his team played, every Grand Final result for

many years and describe specific incidences from games going back decades. Another

child could complete jigsaw puzzles by placing each part, at random, in exactly the

position that it belonged. The incredible thing about this was that he did not need to

start with the square borders, nor did he work with connecting pieces but rather took

pieces from anywhere and placed them precisely where they belonged. As the final piece

was placed there was no need to move the puzzle in any way. These may only be two

isolated anecdotal stories but they do possess the potential to make us ask the bigger

question; does our definition of ability or capacity need reworking?

Conclusion

In many respects the following words from Van Brummelen (2009) are both, a succinct

summary of Mason’s approach to education; as well as confirmation of the value of her

philosophy for Christian Education National schools, under the influence of such great

Reformed thinkers, as Van Brummelen. In response to the question, “How then should

we educate?” he states the following

God’s world is a mystery to be explored and unfolded. It is to be interpreted and understood. It is

to be valued and cherished. It is to be delighted in and savoured. It is to be shaped creatively and

played with imaginatively. It is to be lived with and taken care of responsibly. It is to be valued for

what it is and it can become. And all this is to be done on the basis of faith in God as our Creator,

Sustainer, and Redeemer. Enabling students to do so as unique image bearers is what education

should be all about (p. 353 emphasis mine).

Likewise Mason was advocating for a Christ centred exploration of His creation, where

the child as unique image bearer (person) is enabled rather than directed.

62

CHAPTER FIVE – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

This final chapter summarizes the work undertaken, presents my major conclusions,

and draws some implications. The chapter begins by revisiting the problem addressed,

reviewing my lengthy discussion of Charlotte Mason’s life, influences and “Big Ideas”.

This is followed by a summary of materialism and the major conclusions arising from

critiquing Mason’s writings in the light of the materialist philosophy. I then offer an

extended answer to the central question of the relevance of Mason’s anthropology for

Christian Education National schools here in Australia. The chapter concludes with some

implications for theory, practice and future inquiry.

Summary

The problem addressed in this thesis was to analyse and critically assess Charlotte

Mason’s anthropology with a view to appraising its relevance for Christian Education in

Australia.

The thesis began with an explanation of how I came to study Mason and some

justification for using historiography as a suitable research methodology. It also

proposed the central problem concerning the relevance of Mason’s philosophy,

especially pertaining to her anthropology, for Christian Education in Australia, which is

under the influence of materialist philosophy.

63

This was followed by an extensive discursive on Mason’s life, influences and “Big Ideas”.

The reason for not simply writing a biographical account was argued. Rather the

discursive established four “Big Ideas”, or universals that were central to Mason’s life

and work. They were identified as: Discipleship is the goal of education; the child is born

a person (although chronologically second, still her primary “Big Idea”); Christ is the

King; and the Holy Spirit is the Teacher. It was noted that although the child is born a

person was prominent later than discipleship it was and is the first and most dominant

“Big Idea” in Mason’s writings. It was noted that all four “Big Ideas” are really religious

presuppositions and cognitive norms simultaneously.

Furthermore I proposed that the main source of influence on Mason’s development of

these “Big Ideas” were people and teachings encountered through her involvement with

the Anglican Church of England. Those influences were identified as: The state of the

Church in 19th Century England; Rev Alexander Whyte; John Keeble; Dr Carpenter, F. D.

Maurice; the Church’s response to the science/religion question; John’s Gospel; and her

faith as grown through her involvement within the Anglican Church. All these influences

constantly interacted with her two foci, her understanding of God; and her writings on

education.

In chapter three, materialism was explored as a counterpoint to Mason’s view of the

child as a person. I defined materialism as the philosophy that insists on direct

observation of nature and explains all that is in terms of the laws of nature. Therefore

reality is purely physical. Next I established that there are several scholars and scientists

who would argue that materialism is the dominant philosophy today, and its central

issue is the mind/brain distinction. The historical roots of this distinction were explored,

64

with a close examination of Carpenter’s seminal work Mental Physiology. This tome was

chosen because Carpenter was a contemporary of and strong influence on Mason in this

area. The following examination of the contemporary position only served to further

confirm that the mind/brain problem is still the current issue for materialists and that

that contradicts a scriptural account of integrality of the human person.

The fourth chapter then sought to articulate how Mason’s writings, from a century ago,

tackle this dominant problem of materialism’s inadequate view of the human person,

namely no distinct mind or spirit. It was proposed that the most important “Big Idea” of

Mason’s pertinent to addressing this issue was that of her first principle; children are

born persons. The central tenets of this “Big Idea” were identified as the child possessing

a much greater capacity and hunger for knowledge than hereto acknowledged, that the

role of the teacher and student will vary considerably under this philosophical premise

and therefore the child requires an abundant feast of living ideas. Three key emerging

questions concerning the extent of ‘goodness’ in the child, the role of the teacher and the

nature of the ‘food’ required for the student were subsequently analysed.

The other component to be discussed was the nature and role of the Holy Spirit. For if

we go beyond the confines of materialism to suggest a non-physical or spiritual world

does exist, then we are beholden to explain its essence further. Of major importance her

was Mason’s so called, Great Recognition. The frescos were explained, the connection to

the mind/brain problem, as well as the relationship to education were identified.

Finally, it was necessary to address the two potential unanswered questions in Mason’s

anthropology concerning the possibility of duality and the impact of the Fall. It was

65

argued that Mason was dualistic in her explanation of the dual self, but that she was

almost forced to be that way because of the dominant focus on humans being only bad.

Then the impact of the Fall was considered in regard to possible limitations on capacity

and hunger for knowledge. It was suggested that maybe the limitation is on the

educators’ view of personhood rather than capacity.

Conclusions

This section presents the major conclusions emerging from, first, the importance of

Mason’s religious presuppositions (“Big Ideas”), and second the consideration of

Mason’s approach to the problems of materialism.

(1) Mason’s most important “Big Idea” is that the child is born a person.

(i) This means that the child has a greater capacity and hunger for knowledge

than previously accepted.

(ii) That capacity is available from birth. However the child is still in need of

guidance concerning the development of the Will.

(iii) That capacity and hunger potentially revolutionises education with regard to

the roles of teacher and student as well as the content and method of the

educational process.

(iv) As a person the child is more than a physical being, they also possess a

spiritual hunger, a desire to know God and His world. This is part of that greater

hunger for knowledge.

66

(2) Mason argues that education’s primary goal is cultivation of character.

(i) That cultivation of character or possibly discipleship has, in view, as its

foundation, that Christ is King and that the Holy Spirit is The educator.

(ii) So the character traits to be honed are, or could be labelled, Christian

character traits. The goal is not just developing excellent citizens but Christian

life long learners.

(iii) Here we are concerned with all four instruments, (education is – a life,

discipline, atmosphere and science of relations) working together, not just

education is a discipline.

(3) Materialism dominates philosophy today.

(i) The prominent impact on education is the view of the child as only a material

reality.

Implications

For Theory and Practice

My initial dissatisfaction that I opened this thesis with was regarding the observed

disjuncture between theory and practice. I suggested that Mason potentially provided a

bridge between the two, via her principle that the child is born a person. Whether or not

one is convinced of the Biblical accuracy of her philosophy (a pathway for further

research) there is adequate merit for exploring how this principle can be incorporated

into our ever growing philosophy of education. At the very least, it does propose

Christian answers to the ills of materialism.

67

Further, as has been mentioned, Mason’s philosophy is cumulative, building upon each

previous principle. Later in her 20 principles she articulates several ‘practices’ such as

Narration. Therefore if we are to adequately embrace her philosophy or even the first

principle then we are obliged to explore how the ‘practices’ express that philosophy.

This could mean, like in USA, that new schools will need to be established or current

schools would need to go through something of an overhaul, lest, our endeavours follow

the path of the PNEU and fizzle out because we lost understanding of why were doing

what we were doing.

For Further Inquiry

As this is only a minor thesis its scope is very narrow and there is much more to be done.

If Christian Education National is to embrace Mason’s philosophy as potentially

providing a bridge between the Biblical story and educational practice then more

research needs to be completed on the biblical integrity of her philosophy. A study of

biblical anthropology would be a good starting point. Furthermore, the remaining 19

principles are a fountainhead of potential research.

There would also be much profit in examining why Mason’s approach died out. The

benefits are twofold; firstly, such a study may help the USA schools not to follow the

same path, and secondly much could be learnt concerning how to apply her philosophy

more broadly than just Christian schools.

68

Fowler (1980, 1987) argues that our philosophy should always be evolving and not

singular in focus. Another area of worthy study would be how Mason’s philosophy could

work within such an amalgamated approach. For instance, the question could be asked

regarding how Blomberg’s notion of ‘wisdom’ expands upon Mason’s concept of ‘mind’

to the point of presenting a more thoroughgoing biblical anthropology.

Finally, there is also much scope for longitudinal research into the efficacy of Mason’s

practices. One such study that might bear fruit would be to explore the impact of

changing all early years books (especially the ‘Readers’) with ‘living books’, as well as

providing an abundance (feast) of such books. Another potential may be an examination

of the How? And Why? The various ‘experiments’ in the USA are progressing.

69

Reference List

Bernier-Rodriguez, Benjamin. (2009). Education for the kingdom: an exploration of thereligious foundation of Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy. Online: Lulu Books

Beckman, Jack. (2004). The child is a person. In Elaine Cooper (ed). When children love to learn: a practical application of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy for today. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Blomberg, Doug. (2007). Wisdom and curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Dort College Press.

Cholmondeley, Essex. (1960). The story of Charlotte Mason, 1842-1923. London: Parents’ National Educational Union.

Clouser, Roy. A. (1991). The myth of religious neutrality: an essay on the hidden role of religious belief in theories. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Doidge, Norman. (2008). The brain that changes itself : Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. Melbourne: Scribe.

Fowler, Stuart. (1980). Issues in the philosophy of education. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University for CHE.

(1987). Christian educational distinctives. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University for CHE.

Fowler, Stuart., Van Brummelen, H. M., & Van Dyk, J. (1990). Christian schooling: education for freedom. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University for CHE.

Fox, Mem. (2004). Reading magic: How your child can learn to read before school – and other read-aloud miracles. Sydney: Pan Macmillan.

Glass, Karen. (2001). More on Mason: an evaluation of Mason’s own writings the classical side of Charlotte Mason. Retrieved from www.welltrainedmind.com/charlotte-mason-education/ 31/08/10 10:20am

Goodman, Robert. S., & Kruger, Evonne, Jonas. (1988). Data dredging or legitimate

research method? Historiography and its potential for management research. In Academy of Management Review. 13 (2), 315-325.

Hull, John. E. (2009). Education for discipleship: A curriculum orientation for Christian educators. In Journal of Education and Christian Belief. 13 (2), 155-168.

Kim, Jaegwon. (1995). The mind-body problem. In Honderich, Ted. (ed). The oxford companion to philosophy. London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

70

http://books.google.com.au/booksid=F9oAomj2IIwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+oxford+companion+to+philosophy&hl=en&ei=QT9DTrCFBozMrQeMy8HKBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mind-body%20problem&f=false 11/8/2011.

Macaulay, Susan. Schaeffer. (1984). For the children’s sake: foundations of education for home and school. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Mason, C. M. S. (1886). Home education. (Volume 1 of the Home Education Series).Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published in 1886).

(1896a). Parents and children. (Volume 2 of the Home Education Series.) Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published in 1896).

(1896b). The great recognition. In The parent’s review. 7 (1), 52-59

(1904). School education. (Volume 3 of the Home Education Series.) Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published in 1904).

(1905a). Ourselves. (Volume 4 of the Home Education Series.) Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published as Ourselves, our souls and bodies in 1905).

(1905b). Formation of character. (Volume 5 of the Home Education Series.) Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published as Some studies in the formation of character in 1905).

(1925). A philosophy of education. (Volume 6 of the Home Education Series.) Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. (Original work published as An essay towards a philosophy of education in 1925).

Moses, Paul. K., and Trout, J. D. (1995). Contemporary materialism: A reader. NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103119386 11/08/2011

Natal, A. (2000). Charlotte Mason: For whose sake? Retrieved from www.accsedu.org 10/6/2010.

(2011). Charlotte Mason. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-

mason.htm 15/8/2011

O’Brien, John., Remenyi, Dan., & Keaney, Aideen. (2004). Historiography – a neglected research method in business and management studies. In Electronic journal of business research methods, 2 (2). 135-144.

O’Connor, Dr. Tom. (2011). Qualitative social science research methodologies. Retrieved

71

from www.drtomoconnor.com/3760/3760/ect06.htm

Schaeffer Macaulay, Susan. (1984). For the children’s sake: foundations of education for home and school. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Shafer, Sonya. (2007). Education is an atmosphere, a discipline, a life. E-book Retrieved from http://SimplyCharlotteMason.com/books/education-is/ 31/08/10 9:30am

Smith, James. K. A. (2010). The (re)turn to the person in contemporary theory. In Christian Scholars Review, XL (1), Fall.

Smith, J. Carroll. (2000). Charlotte mason: an introductory analysis of her educational theories and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved November, 2010 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd- 04202000-10510011/unrestricted/jcsmithfinaldissertation.pdf

Stronks, Gloria. Gloris., & Blomberg, Doug. (Eds). (1993). A vision with a task: Christian schooling for responsive discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Taylor, L. C. (1972). Charlotte Mason’s relevance to current educational change. In The Parent’s Review 7 (1), 6-13.

Van Brummelen, Harro. (2009). Education, globalization, and discipleship. In Goheen, Michale. W. & Glanville, Erin. G. (Eds). The gospel and globalization. Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing.

Van Pelt, Deani. A. (2002). Charlotte Mason’s design for education. (Masters dissertation, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada). Retrieved fromhttp://www.redeemer.ca/Media/Website%20Resources/pdf/rfd/Van%20Pelt-%20CHARLOTTE%20MASON%20DESIGN%20FOR%20EDUCATION.pdf

Vitzthum, Richard. C. (2011). Philosophical materialism. Retrieved from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html (23rd July 2011}

72

1 Her early life actually covers the first half of her life which is 40 years. Little is known about this time with very few resources to draw upon. Therefore, this chapter relies heavily upon the work of Benjamin Bernier-Rodriguez (2009) because he has sought to study these years and he has a focus on uncovering Mason’s religious influences.2 Personal correspondence from Carroll Smith has indicated that Mason was not a frequent attender at her local Anglican Church and therefore suggesting caution should be shown when claiming too much about her Anglican heritage. However, the ‘giants’ of the faith mentioned in this section did clearly influence her and her attendance may have been limited by the fact that she, rather than attending services, ran her Meditations with her pupils every Sunday.3 Within only the order of this chapter. However, her first and most dominant principle was Children are Born Persons.4 Margaret Coombs is currently writing the most extensive and current biography of Mason.5 This contention suggests that postmodern ontology with an emphasis on agency and construction of identity does not occupy a place of greater importance than materialism. This could be due to the fact that the construction of identity is built upon the foundation of materialism – the physical reality being the only reality.6 All undated page references in this chapter will refer to this volume.