What do you think?
Rate this book
Serpents in the Classroom: The Poisoning of Modern Education and How the Church Can Cure It
Serpents in the Classroom answers questions that teachers, pastors, and parents often ask themselves. Despite their best efforts, why do children so often reject the Christian faith? The answer is found in the theological presuppositions that undergird much of contemporary education. Though the educational establishment often presents its models as products drawn from evidence-based research that is theologically neutral, they are anything but. Rather, they are founded on theologies that are diametrically opposed to orthodox Christian teaching.
Drawing on his experience as an educator, pastor, and professor, Dr. Korcok uncovers the theological tenets of some of the pedagogues who have been influential in shaping contemporary educational thought and discovers how they have intentionally designed education to turn children away from the Christian faith.
For the Christian teacher and parent, there is an alternative. Dr. Korcok presents the classical liberal arts education model that has served the church well for almost 2,000 years as a practical and theologically sound model of education for training a child for a life of faith.
Drawing on his experience as an educator, pastor, and professor, Dr. Korcok uncovers the theological tenets of some of the pedagogues who have been influential in shaping contemporary educational thought and discovers how they have intentionally designed education to turn children away from the Christian faith.
For the Christian teacher and parent, there is an alternative. Dr. Korcok presents the classical liberal arts education model that has served the church well for almost 2,000 years as a practical and theologically sound model of education for training a child for a life of faith.
178 pages, Paperback
Published February 22, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 19, 2026
I greatly disliked this book.
Korcok is very dissatisfied with modern education. He levels many critiques against modern pedagogy. He speaks of modern pedagogy (and Lutheran schools that use modern pedagogy) in a sarcastic, (often using 'scare quotes' around terms he dislikes), condescending (teachers—even Lutheran ones—are poisoning students with 'pedagogies designed to destroy the Christian faith into which they were baptized'), and sloppy way (he wholesale lumps all non-classical pedagogies together, not distinguishing one from another).
He says at the get-go, "without knowing the theological biases of these educational philosophers, no teacher can properly distinguish between what is usable and what is detrimental" (p. 3). That's not true. Knowing Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions is insufficient to critique pedagogical practices? Seriously. One MUST KNOW the theological biases of every educational philosopher? My parents taught in a non-Classical Lutheran school for 35 years. They do not know the theological biases of Piaget, Montessori, Vygotsky, or Dewey. But they were Christian—Lutheran even. They were good teachers. They cast aside bad curriculums with impunity. They did what worked. They made all things subject to Christ. They prayed (and still pray) for their students. But alas, Korcok says this is impossible!
For someone who promotes what is good, true, and beautiful, Korcok should have said "true" things. The claim (made on page 41) "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, two movements developed simultaneously in the church—Rationalism and Pietism" is possibly true, but demonstrably false. Pietism developed in the 17th century...specifically among Lutherans such as Spener and Arndt...which makes his claim that it "rejected the doctrine of original sin" (p. 41), patently false.
If Korcok wants to talk about a specific kind of Pietism from the 18th and 19th centuries that rejected original sin, then he should use adjectives and words (he—rightly!—makes such a big deal about using words correctly) to be more specific about who he is talking about. This is an example of the sloppy way he writes. He paints with WAY TOO BROAD of a brush in areas like this. His objection to one area is applied too broadly to others. Nuance is frequently lacking.
Korcok doesn't provide citations where he should. Which is to say, Korcok just says things.
Four examples will suffice:
- Page 36, "In classic fairytales, trolls are evil creatures who seek to deceive the innocent. The purpose of such tales was to teach children to be vigilant against deception, and to place their trust in the truth found in the Word of God." (no citation given) Is this true? Trolls are the invention of a post-Christian European society? Color me skeptical. But also, support your claims.
- Page 42, "[Pestalozzi] promoted an intensely personal faith, warned against teaching children according to the catechisms of the church, and had close associations with leaders of the Pietist movement." There is no citation here. Where does Pestalozzi promote such things? Who are these 'leaders' of the Pietist movement with whom Pestalozzi was such good chums? (no names are given).
- Page 42 "Because of this blurring of Pietism and Rationalism, Pestalozzi was claimed by both camps as one of their own and his ideas were freely incorporated into their respective pedagogies." Which "ideas" of his are we talking about? Do they have names? Where were they used? What are you talking about? No information is provided, no citation given.
- Page 96 "The church body published carefully planned music curricula for all age levels and prescribed singing for the first hours of the school day." (No citation is provided). What church body? (we aren't told) Which music curricula? (We aren't told). Appendix 2 in the book is a list of J.C. Vonderau's Learn-by-Heart Schedule for Hymns (is this an entire curricula?). Just because it exists, doesn't mean that it is representative of all Lutheran schools in 1891.
Korcok constructs a significant argument from a single piece of evidence without establishing the evidence as representative of much/most/all teaching in Lutheran schools. Imagine 100 years from now, someone finds a hymn guide that was used in Caspar, WY in 2026, and then writes a book saying that this is how education was done among all LCMS schools in the year 2026. That would be silly and false. I repeat, in this book, Korcok's scholarship is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Three more things. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it might seem odd for me to rate a book so poorly when I share Korcok's theological convictions, so I am compelled to provide more objections.
On page 37, Korcok cites Peter Burfeind's book "Gnostic America." He says, "Burfeind lays out a creed that is followed by many contemporary American cultural institutions. . . . [large block text provided from Burfeind's book] . . . In the Christian church, the Apostles' Creed forms a dual function. It expresses the true doctrine of God and shapes the church into a confessing church. In a similar way, Burfiend's [sic] statements have an almost creedal standing in the educational world in that they shape the way many modern educationalists approach their task." This quote is awful for a couple reasons. First, he calls the quote "Burfeind's statements" without qualifying that Burfeind is a Lutheran Pastor who is OPPOSED to these statements and does not approve of them at all. Second, these statements are not the composition of Burfeind for the purpose that they be adopted by modern educationalists and cited daily like a creed. They are the REPORTING of Burfeind, and an argumentation of Burfeind to lament the Gnostic framework the modern world operates under. NONE OF THIS is conveyed in Korcok's writing.
On page 64 Korcok writes, "Students attending Lutheran elementary and high schools are taught in essentially the same ways as their secular counterparts. They use the same curriculum taught with the same methods. It is true that there may be a religion class and a chapel service, but there is little else in the life of the school that is markedly different." This claim is outright offensive. It is one thing to contend that modern pedagogical methods are harming Lutheran schools, but to claim "there is little else in the life of the school that is markedly different" is to be blind and deaf. Also, shame on Korcok for saying, "there may be a religion class and chapel service." (calling into question whether such things are present with the word "may")
The Lutheran school attached to the congregation I serve is not using classical education. But you can't even WALK INTO the building without seeing crosses. On every wall are posters of Bible verses, pictures of Jesus, billboards of Bible Stories. Our students pray every day (before school starts) and before every meal. We have music instruction. We sing hymns. All our teachers are strong confessing Christians. We hold kids accountable to the 10 Commandments. We don't DENY original sin. We have memory work. We have musicals. We play handbells. And the non-Classical Lutheran school I went to as a child was similar to the one I now oversee. Jesus is on every corner, in every room. Just because you, Mr. Korcok, have an axe to grind doesn't mean you can just besmirch every non-Classical Lutheran school out there in the way that you have.
If you, Mr. Korcok, have seen schools where the Christian identity was this paltry, THEN SAY THAT. Say, "I have seen schools where the only thing distinguishing them as Lutherans was . . ." But to paint with a broad brush like you have done is awful. We get it, Korcok. You're disappointed in us. I'm sorry we've been such a disappointment to you.
The final thing I'll point out is that Korcok laments how in modern pedagogy instructors aren't viewed as instructors but 'facilitators' in education. He criticizes how students are to look to one another (rather than the teacher) for truth. This is a legitimate critique of modern education to be sure.
But then he turns right around and DOES the very thing he says is wrong. On page 29 he says, "Each semester I used to ask my teacher education students, 'What is the most important skill you want to teach children?' Without hesitation, they answer, 'critical thinking.' . . . I ask, 'And just what is critical thinking?' I have yet to be given a lucid answer."
You mean to say that you, the instructor, looked to the STUDENTS for an answer? And then when they didn't give you an satisfactory one (as should be expected by your own argumentation), you then CITE THAT AS EVIDENCE and write a book about the folly of 'critical thinking' as an educator's motive? That's your play? Are you serious? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this?
This book is rife with this kind of nonsense.
Modern education and pedagogy is deserving of a solid and sustained critique. I hope someone does it, because this book is a sloppy, embarrassing, and unserious attempt at the enterprise.
Korcok is very dissatisfied with modern education. He levels many critiques against modern pedagogy. He speaks of modern pedagogy (and Lutheran schools that use modern pedagogy) in a sarcastic, (often using 'scare quotes' around terms he dislikes), condescending (teachers—even Lutheran ones—are poisoning students with 'pedagogies designed to destroy the Christian faith into which they were baptized'), and sloppy way (he wholesale lumps all non-classical pedagogies together, not distinguishing one from another).
He says at the get-go, "without knowing the theological biases of these educational philosophers, no teacher can properly distinguish between what is usable and what is detrimental" (p. 3). That's not true. Knowing Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions is insufficient to critique pedagogical practices? Seriously. One MUST KNOW the theological biases of every educational philosopher? My parents taught in a non-Classical Lutheran school for 35 years. They do not know the theological biases of Piaget, Montessori, Vygotsky, or Dewey. But they were Christian—Lutheran even. They were good teachers. They cast aside bad curriculums with impunity. They did what worked. They made all things subject to Christ. They prayed (and still pray) for their students. But alas, Korcok says this is impossible!
For someone who promotes what is good, true, and beautiful, Korcok should have said "true" things. The claim (made on page 41) "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, two movements developed simultaneously in the church—Rationalism and Pietism" is possibly true, but demonstrably false. Pietism developed in the 17th century...specifically among Lutherans such as Spener and Arndt...which makes his claim that it "rejected the doctrine of original sin" (p. 41), patently false.
If Korcok wants to talk about a specific kind of Pietism from the 18th and 19th centuries that rejected original sin, then he should use adjectives and words (he—rightly!—makes such a big deal about using words correctly) to be more specific about who he is talking about. This is an example of the sloppy way he writes. He paints with WAY TOO BROAD of a brush in areas like this. His objection to one area is applied too broadly to others. Nuance is frequently lacking.
Korcok doesn't provide citations where he should. Which is to say, Korcok just says things.
Four examples will suffice:
- Page 36, "In classic fairytales, trolls are evil creatures who seek to deceive the innocent. The purpose of such tales was to teach children to be vigilant against deception, and to place their trust in the truth found in the Word of God." (no citation given) Is this true? Trolls are the invention of a post-Christian European society? Color me skeptical. But also, support your claims.
- Page 42, "[Pestalozzi] promoted an intensely personal faith, warned against teaching children according to the catechisms of the church, and had close associations with leaders of the Pietist movement." There is no citation here. Where does Pestalozzi promote such things? Who are these 'leaders' of the Pietist movement with whom Pestalozzi was such good chums? (no names are given).
- Page 42 "Because of this blurring of Pietism and Rationalism, Pestalozzi was claimed by both camps as one of their own and his ideas were freely incorporated into their respective pedagogies." Which "ideas" of his are we talking about? Do they have names? Where were they used? What are you talking about? No information is provided, no citation given.
- Page 96 "The church body published carefully planned music curricula for all age levels and prescribed singing for the first hours of the school day." (No citation is provided). What church body? (we aren't told) Which music curricula? (We aren't told). Appendix 2 in the book is a list of J.C. Vonderau's Learn-by-Heart Schedule for Hymns (is this an entire curricula?). Just because it exists, doesn't mean that it is representative of all Lutheran schools in 1891.
Korcok constructs a significant argument from a single piece of evidence without establishing the evidence as representative of much/most/all teaching in Lutheran schools. Imagine 100 years from now, someone finds a hymn guide that was used in Caspar, WY in 2026, and then writes a book saying that this is how education was done among all LCMS schools in the year 2026. That would be silly and false. I repeat, in this book, Korcok's scholarship is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Three more things. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it might seem odd for me to rate a book so poorly when I share Korcok's theological convictions, so I am compelled to provide more objections.
On page 37, Korcok cites Peter Burfeind's book "Gnostic America." He says, "Burfeind lays out a creed that is followed by many contemporary American cultural institutions. . . . [large block text provided from Burfeind's book] . . . In the Christian church, the Apostles' Creed forms a dual function. It expresses the true doctrine of God and shapes the church into a confessing church. In a similar way, Burfiend's [sic] statements have an almost creedal standing in the educational world in that they shape the way many modern educationalists approach their task." This quote is awful for a couple reasons. First, he calls the quote "Burfeind's statements" without qualifying that Burfeind is a Lutheran Pastor who is OPPOSED to these statements and does not approve of them at all. Second, these statements are not the composition of Burfeind for the purpose that they be adopted by modern educationalists and cited daily like a creed. They are the REPORTING of Burfeind, and an argumentation of Burfeind to lament the Gnostic framework the modern world operates under. NONE OF THIS is conveyed in Korcok's writing.
On page 64 Korcok writes, "Students attending Lutheran elementary and high schools are taught in essentially the same ways as their secular counterparts. They use the same curriculum taught with the same methods. It is true that there may be a religion class and a chapel service, but there is little else in the life of the school that is markedly different." This claim is outright offensive. It is one thing to contend that modern pedagogical methods are harming Lutheran schools, but to claim "there is little else in the life of the school that is markedly different" is to be blind and deaf. Also, shame on Korcok for saying, "there may be a religion class and chapel service." (calling into question whether such things are present with the word "may")
The Lutheran school attached to the congregation I serve is not using classical education. But you can't even WALK INTO the building without seeing crosses. On every wall are posters of Bible verses, pictures of Jesus, billboards of Bible Stories. Our students pray every day (before school starts) and before every meal. We have music instruction. We sing hymns. All our teachers are strong confessing Christians. We hold kids accountable to the 10 Commandments. We don't DENY original sin. We have memory work. We have musicals. We play handbells. And the non-Classical Lutheran school I went to as a child was similar to the one I now oversee. Jesus is on every corner, in every room. Just because you, Mr. Korcok, have an axe to grind doesn't mean you can just besmirch every non-Classical Lutheran school out there in the way that you have.
If you, Mr. Korcok, have seen schools where the Christian identity was this paltry, THEN SAY THAT. Say, "I have seen schools where the only thing distinguishing them as Lutherans was . . ." But to paint with a broad brush like you have done is awful. We get it, Korcok. You're disappointed in us. I'm sorry we've been such a disappointment to you.
The final thing I'll point out is that Korcok laments how in modern pedagogy instructors aren't viewed as instructors but 'facilitators' in education. He criticizes how students are to look to one another (rather than the teacher) for truth. This is a legitimate critique of modern education to be sure.
But then he turns right around and DOES the very thing he says is wrong. On page 29 he says, "Each semester I used to ask my teacher education students, 'What is the most important skill you want to teach children?' Without hesitation, they answer, 'critical thinking.' . . . I ask, 'And just what is critical thinking?' I have yet to be given a lucid answer."
You mean to say that you, the instructor, looked to the STUDENTS for an answer? And then when they didn't give you an satisfactory one (as should be expected by your own argumentation), you then CITE THAT AS EVIDENCE and write a book about the folly of 'critical thinking' as an educator's motive? That's your play? Are you serious? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this?
This book is rife with this kind of nonsense.
Modern education and pedagogy is deserving of a solid and sustained critique. I hope someone does it, because this book is a sloppy, embarrassing, and unserious attempt at the enterprise.
May 18, 2023
Great introduction to and defense of classical Christian education.
This book has two parts; the first is an analysis of the problem of modern education, and the second is a proposal for the solution of CCE. Korcok occasionally overstates his case in the first part, but the main thrust of his argument is spot-on. His chapter on the "Timeless Standards" of truth, goodness, and beauty is one of the best discussions of the subject that I've read.
This book has two parts; the first is an analysis of the problem of modern education, and the second is a proposal for the solution of CCE. Korcok occasionally overstates his case in the first part, but the main thrust of his argument is spot-on. His chapter on the "Timeless Standards" of truth, goodness, and beauty is one of the best discussions of the subject that I've read.
May 21, 2024
A useful exhortation for Christian schools, churches, and parents to return to a classical Christian way of educating our children.
January 30, 2025
As a classically homeschooling mother with an education degree from a state university, I found this book useful and interesting. The heroes of my education college teachers, Dewey, Vygotsky, Montessori, and Piaget are discussed in terms of their theological perspectives, and Korcok exposes their atheism, gnosticism, and Marxism. I appreciated Korcok's uniquely Lutheran approach, especially to the "why" of Christian classical education -- it's not an attempt at creating a Christian utopia.
August 2, 2023
As a former Elementary Education major, this was an eye-opening book. Korcok presents 4 key educational philosophies that are being taught in both secular and Christian universities; he reveals the hidden agenda embedded in these philosophies, which are ultimately man-glorifying and man-centered. He then continues to argue for a Christ-centered liberal arts education, similar to the educations the early church fathers and Lutheran reformers advocated for in the past. I would recommend this book to any teacher, parent, or college student going into an education program.
May 10, 2022
Great introduction to the problem of modern pedagogy and the solutions that classical liberal arts provide. Very practical but not overly prescriptive. Good for parents, pastors, and teachers alike
June 3, 2023
Four stars for originality of information. What Dr. Korcok presents about the personal lives and philosophies of education's 20th-Century Big Names (Dewey, Vygotsky, Montessori, and Piaget) has, I feel reasonably confident, never been gathered and presented in such a way. What he presents is a clarion reminder that philosophies -- educational or otherwise -- are never "neutral." They grow from beliefs about God, man, and nature which direct both their questions and answers.
In the weeks I was reading this book, I often found myself mulling over what I'd read and assessing how educational philosophies that were originally intended to inculcate Marxist principles, say, are now assumed as simple, good teaching practice. In terms of its value to Christian educators in assessing their practices and whether they reflect a Biblical view of children and learning, this book is a great resource.
That said, I cannot unequivocally say that it is a well-written book. It suffers from some editorial oversights, but it also reads as though it could have been more thoroughly "over researched" to allow culling of best information rather than cobbling together of every shred the researcher discovered.
More importantly, the second portion of the book particularly feels too much like a manifesto for a specific form of current classical education philosophy rather than a generous gesture towards universal truths. I am very glad that Dr. Korcok seeks to provide solutions for the problems he identifies, but I think his view of the "correct" educational model is skewed a bit by the good things he has personally encountered, whereas there might be a broader picture of good Christian education that could be offered as the alternative to the disastrous 20th-Century educational philosophies. (Please note, I say this as a proponent of classical education myself!)
Still, for the revelatory information Dr. Korcok has collected here, this book is worth reading by any Christian teacher who has ever encountered the usual bastions of educational philosophy and psychology. It is good to examine such things, just as it is good to examine our own educational philosophy and methods.
In the weeks I was reading this book, I often found myself mulling over what I'd read and assessing how educational philosophies that were originally intended to inculcate Marxist principles, say, are now assumed as simple, good teaching practice. In terms of its value to Christian educators in assessing their practices and whether they reflect a Biblical view of children and learning, this book is a great resource.
That said, I cannot unequivocally say that it is a well-written book. It suffers from some editorial oversights, but it also reads as though it could have been more thoroughly "over researched" to allow culling of best information rather than cobbling together of every shred the researcher discovered.
More importantly, the second portion of the book particularly feels too much like a manifesto for a specific form of current classical education philosophy rather than a generous gesture towards universal truths. I am very glad that Dr. Korcok seeks to provide solutions for the problems he identifies, but I think his view of the "correct" educational model is skewed a bit by the good things he has personally encountered, whereas there might be a broader picture of good Christian education that could be offered as the alternative to the disastrous 20th-Century educational philosophies. (Please note, I say this as a proponent of classical education myself!)
Still, for the revelatory information Dr. Korcok has collected here, this book is worth reading by any Christian teacher who has ever encountered the usual bastions of educational philosophy and psychology. It is good to examine such things, just as it is good to examine our own educational philosophy and methods.
August 20, 2023
This book is basically your standard, intolleran, evangelical screed written by a fossilized, evangelical church, bitter about the power it has lost in the world. Oh for the glorious days we could go back to the wonderful times of Luther and Calvin, those great men of learning who burned herretics, wrote works such as the Jews and their Lies, conducted and believed in the absolute science of witchcraft and witch hunts, wrote aggressively against their enemies and knew exactly who would go to heaven or hell. Inerrant Bible and all power to parents and church to conduct schooling. Distopian. Grew up in a church school. Hardly any good scientific education. No critical thinking. Authoritarian. Disgusting.
This book disparages so many great educational thinkers who want the absolute best for the progress of the world and children.
These people will always stagnate if they don’t discard nearly all of the Bible with its savagery, immorality, barbarity and fury.
Thank heaven liberal, good Christians are trying to reformulate and rescue Jesus from these people, their totally depraved man and hell.
If church ever got power back, US wouldn’t be as great as it is.
This book disparages so many great educational thinkers who want the absolute best for the progress of the world and children.
These people will always stagnate if they don’t discard nearly all of the Bible with its savagery, immorality, barbarity and fury.
Thank heaven liberal, good Christians are trying to reformulate and rescue Jesus from these people, their totally depraved man and hell.
If church ever got power back, US wouldn’t be as great as it is.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews