Thanks to S. M. Hutchens at Touchstone for this reminder of what Christian school advocates selectively leave out when quoting Machen:
A public-school system, in itself, is indeed of enormous benefit to the race. But it is of benefit only if it is kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of competition of private schools. A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised.
Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyrrany, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past . . . .
From Christianity and Liberalism, p. 14.
Before the posts begin, let me say I get it that Machen is not saying great things about public schools. He is saying that a better education comes elsewhere. But he does say public education is beneficial. Could Dr. K. ever say that?
Even more important is that Machen thinks Christian schooling is a way to resist the tyranny of the state — not a way to promote and maintain a Christian culture. That is a very different argument from the one made by Dr. K. and his assistants.
Which leads to the question, do Christian school advocates believe that Christian schools should teach that quoting selectively is bad scholarship? Or do Christian school advocates require a proof text for Christian schools to teach that lesson?
75 Comments
Yes, I agree. I should have made more clear that “don’t want” doesn’t entail “not willing.”
Well, actually, I wouldn’t describe it like that. Citizens there, aliens here; isn’t that what Hebrews says? Granted, in normal conversation I would describe myself as a citizen of the United States. But the citizenships are not parallel or dual.
Certainly. You would grant that this is not a blanket panacea, though? A “superior training ground” is great for some, but a disaster for others.
JRC
Certainly. You would grant that this is not a blanket panacea, though? A “superior training ground†is great for some, but a disaster for others.
I don’t work in blanket panaceas, so, yes, of course. What I’m trying to do, though, is positively explain a dimension of my advocacy in theory and practice. I don’t see much of that amongst other believers who also public school. What I tend to see is a mix between shame and the fig leaf that to public school is an evangelistic opportunity, as well as a presumed antagonistic posture.
From where I sit, I often get the sense that what the typical Christian school advocate works in is something of a blanket panacea, assuming that as long as an educational endeavor falls into “Christian†we’s all good, as if Christian schooling could never-ever end in disaster like public schooling could (I taught in a disastrous Christian school once). In addition to this, I also think that more often than not Christian school advocacy relies on the incrimination of public education. I don’t have any problem with honest critique, but when it comes to this topic there seems at once a fine line and wide distinction between that and incrimination.
Actually, the Campus Crusade leader at my alma mater took the evangelism idea quite seriously and put his daughters in PS for that reason.
I sure hope not! We deliberately passed over several Christian schools for our daughter, on the grounds that we didn’t like their version of the gospel. (Way Too Much Law).
Likewise, though I teach in a Christian school, I often recommend secular colleges to my students on the grounds that few Christian colleges have confessional Bible departments. Better the wolf in wolves’ clothing, ya know?
JRC
…the Campus Crusade leader at my alma mater took the evangelism idea quite seriously and put his daughters in PS for that reason.
Well, since CC is all about every member ministry, that makes sense. But, education is about meeting the temporal needs of a child. Evangelism is about meeting the eternal needs of others. Education is about a parent making decisions about what’s best for a child, evangelism is about an ordained officer taking on a task by his own volition. I’m all for the general principle that we at least incidentally give witness in all our vocations. But when you miserably confuse all these things, the way the evangelism approach does, you have an unordained person worrying about brokering heaven when he should be doing his homework.
We deliberately passed over several Christian schools for our daughter, on the grounds that we didn’t like their version of the gospel. (Way Too Much Law).
So I guess Wesleyan and Catholic schools would be out (and probably Baptist ones, since they get the second mark wrong). But this gets to my point: education is about education, not religion. It seems to me better to pass over certain churches because they get the gospel wrong. If you would pass over certain schools who broker education to your child because they get the gospel wrong, would you also pass over a certain candidate who will rule over your citizenship for the same reason?
Not quite. Recall that a Christian school is actively attempting to disciple my young’un, while a candidate is not. I would, on the other hand, vote against Decius or Diocletian if given the opportunity.
JRC
Recall that a Christian school is actively attempting to disciple my young’un, while a candidate is not.
This is what I find so curious, that a school is understood to have the same biblical commission as the family and church to make and disciple human beings.
And I wasn’t saying candidates are discipling. I was saying they are ruling. I was making a parallel between delivering education to children and ruling over your citizenship. These are both common, temporal goods. How does it make sense to measure each by eternal standards?
I think the confusion arises because you already have a definite notion in mind of what education is. You’re operating from a definition of education as a primarily intellectual exercise, with affective effects as secondary.
It’s a reasonable definition, I suppose — as long as we don’t let van Til in the room — but there are others.
For some, education is more “world-view inclusive”, including both calculus and Proverbs.
You might disagree with this approach, but you can probably see that the second approach is not delivering a purely temporal good.
Speaking for my school, however, we don’t see ourselves as having the same role as parents or as the church. Rather, we see ourselves as playing a supporting role.
JRC
Jeff,
You’re right about my basic premises.
What I am trying to get some clarity on from your answers is why education is afforded status of soul craft (or, at least, co-soul craft) of children while statecraft is not afforded the status of soul care of citizens. Theonomists seem consistent to me on this score, seeing educators and magistrates as having co-equality with homes and churches.
It would seem to me that if the choice were between schools as co-soul crafters and magistrates as co-soul guardians that it would be the latter. After all, magistrates have reign over the immediacies and necessities of life so the stakes seem much higher. Last I checked, schools can’t take life, property or money—at least not without the magistrate’s approval.
Well, let me speak only for myself. Clear away the notion of the “traditional curriculum” for a moment as being optional. I agree with DGH on that point. What is necessary is for students to learn to love God and love neighbor, by faith, as recipients of grace. I’m speaking of course of covenant children.
The church is obviously the primary locus for this learning. The family is clearly second.
But now we ask,
(1) How does my child learn the pragmatic side, the skills necessary for serving God and others?
(2) How does my child learn to connect the stuff that he’s learning at church and home with the common-grace world in which we live?
I see my job therefore as answering those two questions. I prepare; I interface.
Now, much of the traditional curriculum walks back in the door, either because it is pragmatically useful (e.g.: calculus) OR because it is a necessary ticket to be punched for the world beyond (i.e.: college).
That’s the theory.
At its best, it looks like my math student who hangs around asking questions about theory of knowledge and whether intuitive knowledge can be subsumed under analytic knowledge, and whether this has implications for our knowledge of God.
At its worst, our school can sometimes be co-opted by ticket-punching. Or overly fond of athletics.
Contrast that with my daughter’s PS experience. You recall that we’re generally happy with what she’s getting there. Nevertheless, she and her sister were playing pretend the other day (they can do that for *hours*) and she said, “You can’t say ‘Jesus’ — we’re not supposed to say that in school.”
Well, that caught my attention!
Turns out that she (mis?)understood her teacher to say that she isn’t allowed to talk about Jesus or God at school.
That, too, is a type of soul-care: it communicates that God has his place, and He doesn’t belong in school. (One thinks of Amos: “Hush! The Lord is not to be named”) The “interface” is that what she learns at home has no relationship to what she learns at school.
So if we think in terms of degrees of soul-care, my level of soul-care is fairly small. But if we think of direction of soul-care, I am trying to shove in the same direction as a “typical” Confessional parent. The PS, on the other hand, is trying to shove in a different direction.
For students who can handle the dialectic, the different shoves can lead to creative tension. I went to mostly secular schools. Being a Christian was my form of teen-aged rebellion.
But for other students, the different shoves lead to spiritual angst, or even “loss of faith” (speaking outwardly).
Does that answer your question?
JRC
Oh, I forgot to address this part of your question: Why not magistrates?
(1) From our reading of Scripture, I think we’re conditioned to assume that the magistrate might well not be Christian. (In fact, Anabaptists go all the way with this and consign the world to the Devil) So our expectations of soul-care from the magistrate are low. Indeed, Rom 13 prepares us for the possibility of submitting to an ungodly magistrate.
(2) By contrast, the school, is thought more of as a partner with parents. We are, after all, in loco parentis, and our job is necessary only because of division of labor. Because the school is more closely and directly connected to the function of the parents, it makes some sense at least for the school to look more parental in its function.
(3) And in any event, I think I would *prefer* for Christians to run government, assuming all else equal. Not that I would always like the results, but I would at least feel that there is (a) some kind of shared ground, and (b) a common Scripture to which I could appeal for redress of grievances.
What creeps me out about the rise of utilitarian ethics is that when I appeal to the conscience (“Look, it’s a biologically alive, genetically human distinct organism. Human! Being!”), I get no response (“It doesn’t think, so it doesn’t have any preferences. It’s not a person.”). The conscience has been seared over.
I suppose the same sort of conscience-searing took place during the Inquisition (for different reasons), but that eventually stopped.
JRC
Jeff,
The church is obviously the primary locus for this learning. The family is clearly second. But now we ask, (1) How does my child learn the pragmatic side, the skills necessary for serving God and others? (2) How does my child learn to connect the stuff that he’s learning at church and home with the common-grace world in which we live?
I don’t understand the idea that the home and church don’t have anything pragmatic to instill, thus the school is needed. This seems like a Gnostic bifurcation between faith and practice. I also don’t understand the sort of “totem poling†ranking of church and home. I understand them to be working as an organic front.
Your daughter’s experience is interesting. Mine have had a somewhat experience. I have to correct the mistaken notion that they are being told to muzzle their faith, because that simply isn’t true. But I don’t consider the “hushing†to be that “God doesn’t belong in school†or some form of antagonism against their faith. I read it as way to convey that there are appropriate places to be explicit about faith and places where it is inappropriate, that there really is a way to understand the private and public aspects of faith instead of thinking it’s all public, that indiscriminately wearing it on one’s sleeve all the time is actually unhealthy. In other words, the public school helps me teach what it means to have a secular faith, so I see it as complementing my theology instead of being antagonistic.
I don’t understand the idea that the home and church don’t have anything pragmatic to instill, thus the school is needed.
No, it’s an issue of time. If I could be a stay-at-home dad *and* had specific knowledge of 6yo development, I would do all the educating myself. But as it is, others have more time and expertise. Think “division of labor.”
I also don’t understand the sort of “totem poling†ranking of church and home. I understand them to be working as an organic front.
I have the same understanding. I put church first only because the church has a certain doctrinal authority. However, the ranking is not absolute.
But I don’t consider the “hushing†to be that “God doesn’t belong in school†or some form of antagonism against their faith. I read it as way to convey that there are appropriate places to be explicit about faith and places where it is inappropriate, that there really is a way to understand the private and public aspects of faith instead of thinking it’s all public, that indiscriminately wearing it on one’s sleeve all the time is actually unhealthy.
I don’t perceive #1′s teacher to be antagonistic to her faith. She was either (a) misunderstood, or (b) over-interpreting directions handed down from above. The structure, however, is antagonistic to her faith in this sense: It specifically repudiates, “In whatever you do, do it to the glory of God” and replaces that with, “In certain areas, do not talk about God.”
Likewise: at all times, I am to love my wife. That does not require that I wear that love on my sleeve at all times. But an environment in which I was told, “Do not talk about your wife”, I would perceive as hostile to marriage relationships.
In other words, it would be one thing if #1′s teacher told her, “use some discretion with the Jesus talk” (matter of degree, an encouragement to find appropriate boundaries) as opposed to “we don’t talk about Jesus in school” (Jesus is not welcome).
The first is organic; the second is dualistic.
JRC
It specifically repudiates, “In whatever you do, do it to the glory of God†and replaces that with, “In certain areas, do not talk about God.â€
Likewise: at all times, I am to love my wife. That does not require that I wear that love on my sleeve at all times. But an environment in which I was told, “Do not talk about your wifeâ€, I would perceive as hostile to marriage relationships.
Wouldn’t you agree that making public/private distinctions about faith is not always equal to being hostile to faith? Certainly there is always the danger of public antagonizing of faith. But there is also the danger of misusing faith in the public arena. And this really seems to be the concern of the spirituality of the church, to protect faith from being publically misused. Those not quite so persuaded of the SOTC seem to presume that public faith is always a good thing and never to be seriously questioned, moreover that to suggest the private nature of faith is to be hostile to it. Granted, the secular secularists want to muzzle public faith because they are mainly and categorically hostile to it. But the Christian secularist’s aim is to protect faith from public abuse.
In other words, it would be one thing if #1′s teacher told her, “use some discretion with the Jesus talk†(matter of degree, an encouragement to find appropriate boundaries) as opposed to “we don’t talk about Jesus in school†(Jesus is not welcome).
My experience has been the former, I have never witnessed or experienced hostility. And my sense is that most who hear “distinguish between private and public faith-speech†they think, or at least like to think, they are being told “you can’t have faith or your private beliefs are irrelevant to your public life.†I am not so naïve as to think nobody has experienced hostility in public education. But I am confident that this is the exception and not the rule.
Those not quite so persuaded of the SOTC seem to presume that public faith is always a good thing and never to be seriously questioned, moreover that to suggest the private nature of faith is to be hostile to it.
Really? Is it possible that this is a caricature or misapprehension? What in my responses above give that impression?
My skepticism towards SOTC (as articulated here) has to do with the framework, the specific answer given: two kingdoms as a dualistic tool for thought, corresponding to Law and Gospel, cult and culture, church and world. I am unpersuaded that the question, “Should I be explicit about my faith here?” is easily answered by a simple appeal to secular v. sacred.
I agree that the question needs to be asked.
JRC
“Those not quite so persuaded of the SOTC seem to presume that public faith is always a good thing and never to be seriously questioned, moreover that to suggest the private nature of faith is to be hostile to it.”
Really? Is it possible that this is a caricature or misapprehension? What in my responses above give that impression?
This:
“I don’t perceive #1′s teacher to be antagonistic to her faith. She was either (a) misunderstood, or (b) over-interpreting directions handed down from above. The structure, however, is antagonistic to her faith in this sense: It specifically repudiates, ‘In whatever you do, do it to the glory of God’ and replaces that with, ‘In certain areas, do not talk about God.’”
The structure seems to imply to you that private faith is being publically muzzled. But it seems to me this can only be said when your child is directly disallowed to pray or speak to others about her beliefs, etc. But to my mind, the structure itself doesn’t repudiate faith–it asks us to distinguish between its private and public relevancy.
Jeff, well thank you for that neat and simplistic put-down, as if 2kers respond simply to cultural questions by asking whether it fits into secular or sacred categories. In case you haven’t noticed, the question, “is it appropriate” is a difficult quesiton to answer. The categories of church, family, society, public, private, world, calling, office, help to answer such a question. What you seem to struggle with is the desire for the same answer — yes, it is appropriate — no matter what the setting. Hence, your attraction to Frame and his doing away with distinctions between corporate worship and callings.
Zrim: The structure seems to imply to you that private faith is being publically muzzled. But it seems to me this can only be said when your child is directly disallowed to pray or speak to others about her beliefs, etc.
Recall that we’re talking about a misunderstanding somewhere — either my child (more likely) or her teacher misunderstood what is permissible.
The result was that my child heard, “We aren’t allowed to talk about Jesus in school.” Being a six-year-old, she takes this as absolute and true.
So yes — the structure I’m talking about *does* directly disallow her to express her beliefs. It’s a mistake, of course, but it’s the current paradigm.
JRC
DGH: Jeff, well thank you for that neat and simplistic put-down, as if 2kers respond simply to cultural questions by asking whether it fits into secular or sacred categories.
There’s no attempt at snazzy put-downs. Truly.
Sometimes people just misunderstand one another. So for example, I trust that you when you wrote What you seem to struggle with is the desire for the same answer — yes, it is appropriate — no matter what the setting, it was a genuine misunderstanding rather than a simplistic put-down. Am I correct?
So I should explain. What I perceive is this: the doctrine of SOTC and its corresponding political counterpart REPT are used as tools for critique that explain the errors in others’ approaches. (Those doctrines have other, more positive uses also, but at this site at least, the critiques are most prominent.)
Thus on your account, as I understand it, Frame is wrong about worship not because he is simply wrong about worship, but because he fundamentally fails to separate cult and culture, worship and life. Yes, he says there is a difference between worship and life, but then he smears over all the distinctions and voila! We have drama skits in the worship service. So he doesn’t really distinguish between the two.
Keller is wrong about his conception of ministry not because he is wrong about ministry, but because he fails to separate word and deed.
JRC is wrong about … I dunno, whatever I’m wrong about; let’s say politics … not because of this or that specific error, but because of the general framework: I don’t accept a clean separation of church and state (because I’m overly worried about the duties of the Christian magistrate).
Your critiques often follow a format: Look at this error. See how the error springs from a failure to admit the difference between the sacred and the secular.
(Or: look at this surprising quote from Kuyper/Clouser/whomever … too bad neo-Cals don’t actually read this stuff and realize that there’s a difference between the sacred and the secular).
Alright, so what’s the remedy? I’ve had to interpolate, and perhaps I’ve erred. Here’s my reconstruction, reading between the lines of your ironic critiques:
(1) If the error is to fail to separate cult and culture, then the remedy is to separate cult and culture. Do that, and we avoid the error.
Slogan: “If only you had kept the kingdoms separate, you wouldn’t have erred.”
(2) Although many neo-Cals already admit *some* distinction between cult and culture (even Frame nominally upholds the RPW, right?), their distinctions are not high enough. What is needed is an absolute or almost absolute separation of the sacred and secular, for
(3) If we admit *any* degree of commingling of the kingdoms, we will ultimately slide into 1K-ism. Keller is in the same neighborhood as Shepherd. Neo-Cals are simply evangelicals. Cagle can be identified point-for-point with Frame, whose errors are manifold, but come down to denying a difference between worship and the rest of life. Kloosterman says he wants a third way, but he’s really in the same boat as theonomists. (Oddly enough, Calvin himself is exempt from this rule, despite being more obviously theocratic than any of the above?)
Now, my reconstruction is probably in error at some point, but I trust you can see that I wasn’t aiming for a simplistic put-down.
JRC
Children are literal creatures. It takes time to sophisticate. My concern is with adults who interpret the distinctions being made about the private and public aspects of faith to be hostility toward faith, as it appears you still seem to do. But hostility toward faith is shutting down churches and sanctioning believers in the civil arena. Can you honestly say that there is an educational equivalent going on in your experience?
Not universally, no. In certain areas, yes. Secularism makes the world safe for things like this:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/30/prof.htm
Stuff like this will always happen, I suppose.
But again — this isn’t *happening* in the case of my daughter; she just perceives it that way. Creating a perception is a lot easier to do than to genuinely outright ban things.
JRC
Creating a perception is a lot easier to do than to genuinely outright ban things.
So you’re maybe distinguishing between a sort of soft antagonism (creating a perception of hostility) and a hard antagonism (banning faith). It still seems to me that you’re ironically working with a dualistic set of categories here: either explicitly affirmative of faith in the common realm or antagonistic of it. But, again, 2K wants to make a more triadalist point than a dualist one. It isn’t always as neat and tidy as your categories seem to suggest. When in the common realm it could be antagonism, but just as likely it could also be mere disagreement, and it isn’t always easy to determine which is which.
So you’re maybe distinguishing between a sort of soft antagonism (creating a perception of hostility) and a hard antagonism (banning faith). It still seems to me that you’re ironically working with a dualistic set of categories here: either explicitly affirmative of faith in the common realm or antagonistic of it.
No. In general, you’ll have to work really really hard to get me to accept a hard dualism. (I accept a few, like “Scripture is the word of God; everything else isn’t.”). For everything else, it’s a matter of degree.
I’m pretty sure that I’ve clearly demarced between a structure (1) being hostile to faith, (2) being implicitly hostile to faith by discouraging discussion, and (3) being accepting of faith but under discretion. All three of these are still different from (4) being implicitly affirming of faith, or (5) being explicitly affirming of faith.
JRC
And so by:
“…the structure I’m talking about *does* directly disallow her to express her beliefs. It’s a mistake, of course, but it’s the current paradigm.”
You mean that the current paradigm is:
“(2)implicitly hostile to faith by discouraging discussion…”
Yes. The legal paradigm is officially (3), but my daughter understands it to be (2). We’ll be working on that.
JRC
Jeff, I think you have it backwards. I think Frame is wrong about worship and it results in confusion of the kingdoms. I think Keller is wrong about word and deed and its consequence is a social gospel. And I think you tend to be wrong about eschatology — from what I can tell in our exchanges — and this plays out in confusion about the spheres. So I do not think I start with 2k, but — look at me!! — with Reformed theology and practice and I see in our tradition and standards the basis for 2k arguments and application.