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?
Old Life 
Contrary to what may be useful to prop up certain antagonisms, the best of public education advocacy has always included a hearty affirmation of the other branches of instruction (the best run for the proverbial money is amongst the Catholic schools). And it has always recognized a form of sphere sovereignty that allows for parental authority. To the extent that certain Christian school advocates want to make education a fourth mark (and there’s a soft version as well), it doesn’t appear that the favor is always returned.
And contrary to what may be useful to prop up certain other antagonisms, the best of two kingdom advocacy recognizes that even educational institutions of 1K persuasion (and even those with idolatrous backdrops) can be superior choices. Ironic how some benefit from others not following the former’s rules.
LikeLike
Dr. Machen inhabited a world where the public schools of the day were at worst neutral toward religion and humane values and at best supportive of Christian faith. As sociologists put it, the culture was broadly “Christian” in norms and base assumptions. In that world, public schools were hardly a threat to Christian faith. In today’s world, the public schools are devoted in principle to a militant secularism that in practice consists of a brooding, manifest hostility to Christian faith. While there are wonderful public school teachers, even some who are Christian, the curricular materials manifested by many state departments of education include materials that have the effect (some would say are “designed” to do so) of dismantling Christian faith and inculcate ideas, norms, and values that are inimical to Christian faith. I represent some of the largest school districts in the nation and am familiar with the curricula. While my professional duties require me to obey the law and oppose Christian parents’ objections, my sympathies are with the parents.
I don’t find any biblical basis to mandate Christian schools upon Christians, nor to bind the conscience of Christian parents, but I can understand why many Christian parents cannot in all conscience give their children over during their formative years to government schools that are exressly calculated to expunge from their children any vestiges of the faith that the parents are attempting to nurture in their children. Since the government has their kids 30+ hours a week, it is much more difficult in the few remaining hours to counteract the formative, corrosive influence of teachers and textbooks and films that bear the imprimatur of impressive authority figures.
If Dr. Machen saw the public schools as a threat to liberty in the early 20th century, I believe he would see them today as a threat to Christian faith, Christian liberty, and the moral order of even secular society. While on 2k principles we would not seek to impose Christian faith or “Christian culture” on the non-Christian society, we can and should work to uphold moral norms grounded in natural law, as Dr. VanDrunen has argued so eloquently. Public schools in most states are today at war with natural law, even the creation order. Accordingly, no Christian can greet this development with detached bemusement.
LikeLike
“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side.’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” – (Adolph Hitler) Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
“Keep your children as much as may be from ill company, especially of ungodly playfellows. It is one of the greatest dangers for the undoing of children in the world; especially when they are sent to common schools: for there is scarce any of those schools so good, but hath many rude and ungodly ill-taught children in it.†– Richard Baxter, Christian Directory, Part II, Ch. X, Direct. XV.
LikeLike
CVD,
While you seem to have loads of liberty for those who don’t, you seem to suggest that he who chooses a public education for his children is deliberately opting to “give [his] children over during their formative years to government schools that are expressly calculated to expunge from their children any vestiges of the faith that the parents are attempting to nurture in their children.” Yeow. That’s pretty strong. I guess, as you represent clients and I raise kids, we disagree that that is what is really happening on the ground.
But how does your implication really differ from Michael’s insinuation that we PSers, as we let them mix and mingle with “rude, ill-taught and ungodly playfellows,†are helping future tyrants make little jack-booted minions?
Michael,
I remember a public school student teaching exercise I had once a long time ago. We student teachers had to meet with faculty and staff to hear parent and community letters. Most were either positive or constructively critical of the general goings on. But a handful had clearly just turned off another installment of Focus on the Family and parroted the usual cultural warrior clap-trap. But now I wonder if they had just put down Baxter. Hey, isn’t he latitudinarian on justification?
LikeLike
Zrim, I guess everyone who questions the public school establishment is simply parroting the usual cultural warrior clap-trap. When did a parents own attempts to apply Deut. 6:7-9 in the raising of their children become something about changing the culture? It doesn’t say “You shall teach them diligently to your children so they can be a culture-warrior!”
I’m not saying you have to private or homeschool your child to be a member of a church. That is certainly not in scripture. But you’d have to be completely irrational as a Christian to suggest there is nothing wrong with public schools in America today.
Wake up and read the news…
http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1903566059/Taunton-second-grader-suspended-over-drawing-of-Jesus
http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2009/12/16/bible-not-appropriate-for-school-reading/#axzz0aAYkc3uR
LikeLike
I believe in separation of school and state, as a matter of political philosophy. Machen’s assertion that a government-run school system can be beneficial to society, so long as it never grows into a monopoly or instrument of tyranny is sort of like saying that having a large, powerful standing army is a great benefit, so long as it doesn’t lead us into far-flung foreign adventures. Both statements are true. But hopelessly optimistic. It ignores the reality of government institutions.
In the brief history of our public school system, we have seen them change from schools run by local school boards to schools run primarily by state officials, and now the federal government is gaining more control. Once the federal government has control, it will push the agenda of those in power. Always.
Sometimes I marvel at how clear this is. Now more than ever, everyone is pushing for practical education. High school should prepare students for the rigors of day-to-day life in a modern economy, it is often said. But out of the same mouth comes demands for teaching evolutionary biology and complex theories about how the universe came into being. Could there be anymore useless topics for day-to-day life.
Most graduates have a minimal understanding of algebra (not to mention calculus), logic, grammar, statistics, American history, or how world governments function. But they know to shout down anyone who contradicts the “scientific consensus” about evolution, global warming, or when human life begins. No doubt this is a useful education. But useful to whom, I ask?
But so long as public schools remain a choice for parents, I don’t think that there has to be an automatic rejection of public schools for Christian parents. Christian parents should make themselves aware of the dangers surrounding public schools and investigate the school district in which they live. I don’t doubt that in many circumstances a completely faithful father could determine that a public school is the best option for his children.
LikeLike
Michael,
I think there is a significant difference between questioning the PS establishment and railing against it. The parents whose input was constructively critical about how a better decision could have been made with regard to structuring the preK-Kindergartern program was an example of the former. The parents who suggested the Christmas program was an anthem to Satan, the latter. The politainment of Fox News didn’t exist back in the early 90s, but the parents who railed (fellow members of my IFCA church) have predictably added it to their playlist. I’m not convinced that sensationalist headliner news doesn’t, in fact, simply reinforce the fact that Baxter-leaning outlooks have more to do with frothy culture war than fostering true piety in children. It guess it’s more fun to get worked up than think carefully.
I appreciate your downgrading my practice from sinful to completely irrational, but it bears striking resemblance to the soft legalism of the modern teetotaler with respect to substance use, “Not sinful, deary, just really, really dumb and unhealthy.”
LikeLike
Now here’s a sane argument that deserves serious consideration from any public education advocate. Why can’t Christian school advocates say things like this instead of suggesting that day schools were ordained to nurture faith (co-opting those institutions actually ordained for such work, the family and church) and secular schools were cdemon-spawned to deconstruct true faith?
Still, with all its flaws and potential pit falls, I remain true to my school. Kinda like my wife.
LikeLike
Zrim, RL’s argument is point-for-point identical to CVanDyke’s.
(And as a public-school parent, I agree with both.)
JRC
LikeLike
Just to flesh that out a bit: RL emphasizes the agenda of those in power in terms of the popular issues of the day; CVD emphasizes the content of that agenda in terms of its antagonism to Christianity. Those are just two different parts of the elephant. Why would children be forced to parrot back theories of origins, if not for its utility in “refuting” the Bible? (Hint: in less politicized areas of science, diversity of view is welcome).
So the two gentlemen are really talking about the same thing.
—
My daughter has a K teacher whom we love and who does a good job with her. There’s no indication that she’s a Christian. But at back-to-school night, the principal informed us that the school-wide theme for the year was Pride. Each child will be given an assignment, she said, to write down something that they are proud of about themselves.
Fantastic. (not)
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
There are some similarities in what both are saying. But CVD seems to think public schools are in fact out to deliberately deconstruct Christian faith. RL’s concern seems to be over the nature of government run efforts. If CVD is right then I don’t see how anyone could suggest, as RL does, that there doesn’t have “to be an automatic rejection of public schools for Christian parents,†nor how “a completely faithful father could determine that a public school is the best option for his children.†There is absolutely nothing in CVD’s comment that suggests anything but impiety in believer’s public schooling.
I realize it’s popular to suggest that anatagonism has sky-rocketed in the contemporary scene. But trained in a secular Teacher’s College, my experience in public education in various capacities (and some sacred) over the last twenty five years tells me that CVD is repeating a scare-theme not really new since Baxter. What this outlook forgets is that the early Christian church faced forms of paganism in education and broader society that would make modern Christian school advocates faint. And yet one is hard pressed to find any evidence of anything akin to CSI. I can live with the argument that government over-reaches and makes mistakes, but I shrink at the idea that it’s out to actively grind out Christian faith. It’s the difference between cynicism and skepticism.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m not sure how Fox news twisted the story, as they simply reported on what’s happening. It’s easier to make this a political or “Christian liberty” argument. But that’s not what it is. Homeschooling is growing at a tremendous rate in the US due to the anti-Christian indoctrination of public school students. Let’s see, the “save schools” czar, a homesexual who’s been caught on tape talking about young boys, is a pushing the homesexual agenda into public schools. Dwarnian evolution is taught as the unquestionable answer to man’s origins. When teachers even use the scientific method to question evolution, they are reprimanded or fired. Prayer is unacceptable. Condoms are handed out on many campuses. Sex education is now given in the 4th grade. Teachers are having more affairs with their students. But I’m sure all this is just sensationalist headliner news.
Could it be since you’re on their payroll, it will be difficult to see the PS system for what it is?
Let’s not use 2k theology as an excuse to remove guilt for doing “worldy” things.
LikeLike
Oh, look, it’s a worm on a hook. I think I’ll bite.
dgh: “But he does say public education is beneficial. Could Dr. K. ever say that?”
Darryl, Darryl, it is hard for you to karate chop against the goads.
Is public education better than no education? Sure, Dr. Nelson Kloosterman (Google capability) could say that. Is it to be preferred over Christian education (I mean Reformed Christian education)? Certainly not.
dgh: “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.”
A different argument, but not one that negates it. And yet it is an argument for it nonetheless — which arguments seem to be lacking on your part, though perhaps I have my hands over my eyes.
Look, Darryl, I may be a dike-hopper of Reformed Calvinistic proportions, but what does the Westminster Shorter Catechism say about the chief end of man? This chief end is the reason for which we were created. It is the reason for which we were recreated in Jesus Christ. Why shouldn’t this chief end be pursued in education also? You write that Machen did not argue for Christian education as “a way to promote and maintain a Christian culture.” (On a side note: is this an argument from silence?) But I’d argue that the purpose of Christian schools is so that we might fulfill and prepare students to fulfill their raison d’etre — their “chief end.”
See Q&A 32 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Our Christian identity is not simply a fact or indicative, but also a calling and imperative. We are to live out our Christian identity. This, in part, is why we talk about “Christian” schools and education, as well as Christian this and Christian that. We are united to Christ by faith so that we might once again take up the command to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbour as ourselves — to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This is our Christian identity and our Christian calling. What area of life is excluded from this? The cultural part of life?
LikeLike
Michael,
If your point is that both the institution and the sinners that inhabit it fall down all the time to greater or lesser degrees, then I’m with you. Don’t forget, though, the same applies to the institutions and inhabitants of home schools and Christian schools.
But if your point is to employ horror stories to make serious points, not so much. I mean, I could relay things I have seen and heard in my experience with sacred education. Fun and Foxy as that may be, I find it doesn’t really add much to real conversation.
LikeLike
But Jonah, the problem is that Dr. K. has made it seem like public education is a sin, as in Christian education is required for holding office — sort of like public schooling is the educational equivalent of polygamy (as in an elder should only have one wife). So you’re saying a sinning education is better than no education? I don’t think so. (Also, please remember all the other comments here about the sinfulness of public schools, dualism, secularism, or at least their infidelity. Don’t go squishy on me, Jonah.)
I agree that we are to honor and glorify God in our callings and that we should teach this to children. That doesn’t add up to a requirement for Christian schools. It does add up to parental responsibility, along with some oversight from the church, to make that happen.
BTW, do you really think education leads to glorifying God? Do you think that the uneducated can’t glorify God? If the kleina leida (however you spell it, “little folk”) can glorify God without an education, what does that do to your case for Christian schools?
LikeLike
In addition to the un/educated bifurcation that seems to flow naturally from the curriculum-is-more-or-less-mandated view there is another one that splits children and adults into different camps. To the extent that education is arguably a child’s vocation in the modern era, it seems to assume that while children must have a distinctively Christian vocation adults do not. Piety and wisdom demand that Johnny and Suzie go to Sylvan Christian, but Mom and Dad can take up any (lawful) secular vocation they please.
At least part of this seems to owe to an idea that the supernatural development of children is in direct proportion to their natural development. As the ability to grasp algebra increases, so does one’s ability to grasp Christ. And, somehow, upon the age of 18 (or 22), a sufficiently educated student is also a sufficiently nurtured disciple who may now safely take up secular vocation (not as participant, mind you, but as transformer). Little wonder the Dutch Reformed professions of faith come in waves of graduates.
LikeLike
dgh: “…the problem is that Dr. K. has made it seem like public education is a sin…â€
Public education itself? Or the act of parents sending their kids to a public school? I wouldn’t want to give blanket yes or no answers, but would rather consider these things on a case by case basis. If parents send their kids to a public school, is this a sin? That would depend on a number of factors beyond the school of choice. Whether it is sinful would also require a consideration of the motives, context, and effect of such a choice.
dgh: “I agree that we are to honor and glorify God in our callings and that we should teach this to children.â€
Yes, I don’t doubt this. (Though previously I doubted whether your formulation of the 2k distinction required this, as in the case of the plumber. But I grant you are sincere in saying this.) But, sir, if we are to honor and glorify God in our callings, shouldn’t we expect this from those called to teach our children?
The unbelieving teacher does not see learning from general revelation as growing in knowledge of God; does not see learning as an act wherein we behold the handiwork of God; does not understand the need nor feel the desire to give glory to God in response to what we learn; does not direct the students to participate in responding to God in praise even as they ought within the context of pedagogy; does not understand the all-of-life-encompassing character of the covenant of grace; does not understand the command to raise our children in the fear of the Lord. I grant that because of the existence of sin, it may sometimes be necessary, though not to be desired and not ideal, to learn under the instruction of non-Christians who are scientifically knowledgeable and gifted, even as our boy Daniel did. But Daniel and his friends were taken away from Judah by force against their will and so can only be held up as a standard in a limited fashion. We, however, have the great privilege and freedom to build Christian schools and educate certain gifted Christians in general revelation so that they might teach our kids in a way that enables them to fulfill their raison d’etre, even as it pertains to our activity in the “sphere†of education. Education should not be seen as merely preparation for service to God but also itself service to God.
dgh: “That doesn’t add up to a requirement for Christian schools. It does add up to parental responsibility, along with some oversight from the church, to make that happen.â€
I would rather say it doesn’t necessarily add up to a requirement for Christian schools. But aren’t Christian schools a logical consequence of the parental responsibility to which you refer? Perhaps not the only logical consequence, e.g. home-schooling. Perhaps some parents may choose to send their kids to the local public school for, say, kindergarten, because the nearest Christian school doesn’t have kindergarten and they know that the kindergarten teacher at the public school is a devout Christian – as was the case for me when I was a little 5 year old with much blonder hair than I have now. But when there is a faithfully Reformed Christian school available (like this one: http://www.hcsjordan.ca/home/welcome.php — supported by parents from four URCs and two Free Reformed Churches) then why would parents send their kids to a public school where Christianity is seen as a relic from the dark ages?
dgh: “BTW, do you really think education leads to glorifying God?â€
Does going to church twice every Sunday lead to glorifying God? Not necessarily, but it is the goal. And not only the goal or result, but the act itself is also the goal, i.e. glorifying God. I’m sure you’ll agree we shouldn’t separate the means from the ends. Was the thief on the cross who repented excused from going to “church†in his earlier years? We must distinguish between the rule and the exception to the rule. The exception to the rule does not negate the rule. Students that go to public schools can turn out quite alright. Students that go to Christian schools can turn out poorly. But we may not justify the means by the ends, as God appoints both by which we must glorify Him. Thus, raising children in the fear of the Lord is not something that is only intended to result in God’s glorification but is itself to be God-glorifying.
dgh: “Do you think that the uneducated can’t glorify God?â€
In a strict sense there is no one uneducated, though not everyone is formally educated. As for the kleina leida, you probably know more Dutch than I do. I’m a third generation Dutch Canadian and I know far more French than I’ll ever know Dutch. (Unless I do go for a doctoral degree one day, then I’ll probably choose Dutch as the second modern foreign language for research.)
P.S. Good post on Advent.
LikeLike
Jonah,
You’re certainly on the mark when you say that we’re called to live out faith. And we are to strive to love God. But this doesn’t lead to a Christian this or a Christian that. It negates it. Only people can live and love God. A school can’t. A government can’t. A company can’t. Thus, we need to be more focused on Christian students, not Christian schools.
You might object that you know that we need to focus on Christian children, not Christian schools and say that the Christian school is one way that you help your child grow in faith. Let me ask you this: Having received the Spirit by hearing with faith (at church), is a child to be perfected by learning his multiplication tables?
Our chief end is surely to glorify God. But are you implying that a Christian child who learns world history at a Christian school glorifies God more than a Christian child who learns world history at a public school?
LikeLike
If public school offers an education about things of earth (that is, math, science, logic, etc) and you want to send your children, then send them and let them learn without raising any questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, “learning from atheists is idolatry,” then do not do it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake— the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should your freedom be judged by another’s conscience? If I send my child to public school with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So whether you learn at school or at home or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble….
LikeLike
I don’t believe it’s seriously open to debate today that much of the public school systems are overtly hostile to Christian faith. In my role as a lawyer who meets with public school superintendents, administrators, and school board officials, I assure you that most are personally hostile to traditional religioun generally and Christianity particularly. And if they aren’t the administrators in the state departments of education are, as reflected in their curricula. It isn’t that they necessarily hate Christians per se, but they feel Christians are a roadblock to a more enlightened politial agenda. And conventional morality and the view that there are absolute values is inimial to their liberal point of view. Their values education and tolerance classes are intended to instruct children to believe that they are morally autonomous and should be their own source of value; that any outside source that would argue for objective values or authorities over and above them are unenlightened and oppressive. Anyone who doesn’t believe this has been living on Mars or is in denial. If the public schools do not inculcate moral relativism, disdain for religion, and the view that Christian faith is a dangerous superstition, why are these teachings in their instrucitonal materials. And it begs the question as to why parents flock in droves to the school districts I represent, to board of educaiton meetings, to meetings with principals and superintendents, to protest these matters? The Jewish, Mormon, and Roman Catholic, and Protestant parents are up in arms about it, and I spend hours every week dealing with them and the lawsuits they file. Let’s start with frank recognition that the public schools generally are hostile to Christian faith and are determined — since they admit it — to re-educate children into more enlightened — read non-Christian — thought categories. What Christian parents do about it is up to them. And we can agree to disagree about what biblial wisdom would suggest, but let’s at least get the facts straight.
LikeLike
Surely that’s a multifactorial question? “Does everyone going to a Reformed Church automatically glorify God more than anyone going to a Baptist church?” Certainly not — but we Reformed folk would like to think that Reformed theology gives an edge there.
Likewise, there are a multitude of factors that make it impossible to say yes to your question. The spiritual life of the student, the quality of the teacher, the theology of the school — all of these play a role.
But education in world history *with* the underpinnings that “God made it and directs history through His providence” ought to give an edge over “God did not make it; or if he did, we can’t really tell what He’s like anyway; and by the way, the Puritans can be summed up by The Crucible and Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God.”
Do you disagree?
See, as much as I find attractive about a doctrine entitled “The Spirituality of the Church” (who wouldn’t?), I find it an awkward tool for thinking. It requires me to be all-or-nothing about separating cult from culture. Thus, Christian education is not merely optional; it is suspect. It is no better than secular education; it is a confusion of law and gospel.
I don’t think that’s quite right. Even if I can’t and won’t have heaven on earth, I think Christian schooling makes an incremental difference in the ability of my students to glorify God.
JRC
LikeLike
Religious education is a duty of church members and parents. Everything else is a market commodity like the meat from the market that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 10. To spiritualize it is nonsense. It is trying to make something sacred that is not sacred.
Why buy meat from a butcher when I can buy meat from a butcher who can also tell me that God owns that cow and the cattle on a thousand hills?
No one has said that children shouldn’t be catechized and instructed in theological knowledge. That is the duty of parents and church members. Education on everything else is either done for pleasure, done for practical earthly reasons, or done to enhance the student’s position in a competitive economy. These are worldly matters that can be taught by atheists.
Why do Christian schools teach calculus? To make better Christians or to make engineers and doctors and scientists? You’ll probably say, “To make Christian Scientists, etc.” But what makes a scientist, or anyone else, a Christian is faith. And faith comes through grace administered through ordained means.
LikeLike
First, note my post at December 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm. I believe that I am in possession of the facts. The conclusions that I draw are different, but the facts seems similar.
You have neither a legal nor a professional duty to represent these school districts. In fact, you may be legally required to withdrawal from representing them.
Let’s look at the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 6.2(c) forbids requiring a lawyer to represent a client if “the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.”
The Model Rules also place upon the lawyer a “duty of undivided loyalty” to his clients. I submit that you have divided loyalties. I too am a lawyer. And I take these duties very seriously. We need to be honest with our clients and ourselves. Clients are better served if we can be candid about why we will not represent them, without fear of ethical violation or the burden of professional obligation.
LikeLike
The reason I teach calculus at a Christian school is to prepare my students to fulfill God’s calling in their lives.
Is the content of that calculus different from what they might get from a non-Christian? To a first-order approximation, probably not. My version of calculus is, however, situated in a very different context from a non-Christian’s calculus. I’d like to think that the whole package continues to bear fruit in the out-years.
Let’s flip this around and ask why it is that Harvard, Yale, Andover, Princeton, and the others went secular. Did they see the light of 2K theology? Did they decide that their mission could be better served by pursuing the Spirituality of the Church?
No: first, their theology went south. Then they lost any reason for retaining their Christian mission. Somehow, non-Christian thinking subverted their whole package.
So if there, then why not here, in public (or any other) schools?
JRC
LikeLike
RL: “Only people can live and love God. A school can’t. A government can’t. A company can’t.”
Yes we can! Yes we can! (Kidding.)
I understand the danger of reification or anthropomorphic fallacy, but can a school, government, or company be rightly considered apart from the people involved in it? Can’t schools, governments, and companies be held morally culpable? Who is the ultimate King to whom they owe obedience?
LikeLike
I hate to flood this post with comments, but I have a hypothetical question for the Christian school supporters?
Suppose two schools exist in your district (and let’s rule out homeschooling for now). One is a Christian school. One is a public school. As to how they treat spiritual matters the schools are typical. That is, the Christian school teaches as much religious material as a typical Christian school, and the Public school is as hostile to Christianity as the typical Public school. Concerning spiritual matters, they are just like the schools that we know about.
But concerning all other forms of knowledge the public school is superior in every way. If your child goes there, he’ll likely go on to college and probably even graduate school. If your child goes to the Christian school, if he graduates, he’ll probably end up working in dead end retail jobs for the rest of his life. He won’t starve. But he will not be able to afford many creature comforts. He’ll have enough for his family to get by and a little to give to charity.
Which school would you send your child too?
Is there any point at which you would trust a public school to teach your child practical knowledge and you would just shoulder the burden of his theological education yourself?
LikeLike
RL: “Why do Christian schools teach calculus?”
Do you know what the first Q&A of Calvin’s Geneva Catechism is? “What is the chief end of human life? To know God by whom men were created.”
This is why calculus should be taught. Because by learning calculus we are learning about how God governs and upholds the universe. In so doing we are learning about who God is, His wisdom, power, and glory. In studying calculus we are beholding the handiwork of God, growing in the knowledge of Him as He has revealed Himself in general revelation, and are called to respond in awe and praise.
The teaching of calculus isn’t simply to prepare students for service to God, but is itself an act of service to God. Atheists and public schools do not participate in this “worship” of God.
LikeLike
Sorry about the poor punctuation. I was trying to multi-task.
LikeLike
So if the Geneva Catechism is taught at home, and the student has a proper grasp of God’s sovereignty, does it matter whether he learns calculus from an atheist or a Christian?
LikeLike
>>Yes we can! Yes we can! (Kidding.)
LOL…Interestingly, it was when I was doing research as a speech writer for a liberal politician that I became fully convinced of the need to separate school and state. I was already a card-carrying libertarian when I took the job, and I still wrote the speech, so I confess to whoring out my principles. I’ve repented.
LikeLike
RL: “But concerning all other forms of knowledge the public school is superior in every way.”
I think I see pigs flying by my window.
Ya, I know, it’s a hypothetical. But you are construing the premise of the situation so as to try to force the answer you want to hear. The right response to such an unrealistic hypothetical situation is to expeditiously fire the principal of the Christian school and all the poor teachers there, and hire more gifted ones instead.
LikeLike
RL: “…does it matter whether he learns calculus from an atheist or a Christian?”
Yes.
Will the atheist only teach calculus when teaching calculus? If not, what will he be teaching your child?
If the Christian teacher only teaches calculus when teaching calculus, then he has not done his job, for he should place calculus in the right context and teach the student to understand it within the Christian worldview.
LikeLike
There isn’t an answer I want to hear. I admit that if the hypo were reversed (in a way) and we posited a Christian school and a public school that were equal in practical education, but the Christian school also deliver first-rate theological training and the public school attempted full on indoctrination. I would, without a doubt, choose the Christian school.
This entire discussion is hypothetical to me at this point as I don’t have children yet. And I really do appreciate having the chance to discuss it with everyone before I am faced with the situation. It’s a real blessing to have this not only brought to my attention before I have to make a decision, but also to be able to talk with passionate, well-informed people.
LikeLike
CVD,
Let’s start with frank recognition that the public schools generally are hostile to Christian faith and are determined — since they admit it — to re-educate children into more enlightened — read non-Christian — thought categories. What Christian parents do about it is up to them. And we can agree to disagree about what biblial wisdom would suggest, but let’s at least get the facts straight.
But if I agree with you that the PS system is out to deliberately crush Christian faith then I fail to see how “we can agree to disagree about what biblial wisdom would suggest” with regard to how Christian A and Christian B decide to educate their children. Seems like your stacking things in your favor. But what would actually undermine my children’s faith would be to keep them from the ordinary means of grace once week, either passively (not going to church) or actively (going to anything but a Reformed church). In other words, the power of parental authority and influence outweighs anything any slob in a classroom does. All he can do is influence. I have the power to make, construct or deconstruct. So even if he spends seven hours telling my child God didn’t make the world, I easily overturn that at catechism that night in about three minutes. It seems to me that your view has a pretty dubious assumption that homes aren’t quite as powerful as they really are.
And I don’t want to speak out of turn, but it seems to me that in your line of work you only have clients when something extraordinary happens. I get that you see a lot of crapola. What I don’t understand is how you interpret extraordinary circumstances to explain ordinary reality. Just because some school disticts have whackos in them doesn’t mean the entire system does. Seems like a family court judge, who, by definition, deals with dysfunction, saying that all of today’s families are all nuts and nobody deserves to have kids. There’s blowing steam and then there’s blowing cynicism.
LikeLike
Your graciousness is well received. P.S. For which “liberal” politician did you do the speech writing research (of which you’ve repented)? Just curious.
LikeLike
RL,
When our oldest began kindergarten years ago we had a choice between two schools within walking distance and right across the street from each other. One was a PS and the other was the flagship CS in Grand Rapids. As strong PS advocates, my wife and I wanted the PS. But we deemed it unacceptable. For various reasons, we weren’t convinced that paying the CS bill was worth it. We opted for a much more incovenient charter school. Before her first year was up, we moved across town, guided principally by which PS district was superior. We have yet to be let down in our choice. There are plenty of good schools around here of varying kinds (classical, Christian, Catholic, Baptist). The dirty little secret about education is that, like statecraft, it can happen in a multitude of settings in a variety of ways. The question is whether it is being done well.
For my money, even if your hypothetically shiny school exists, I’d still go with a good PS. I have various reasons for doing so, but one of them is that, in my experience, a good PS seems to understand that the making of children and the nurturing of religious faith belongs to the family alone (and lets me do so in conjunction with an under the authority of the church). Christian schools seem to think this is a joint effort between the home and the school. I don’t like being undermined. What is intriguing is that this joint effort idea was the transformationist assumption of past PS architects like John Dewey; they all agree that the school is at least as powerful as the home, what they disagree on is how to apply the principle. CVD’s whackos notwithstanding, the secularists have figured out its flaws. Some may still be kicking around trying to make human beings instead of or along with educating minds. But I have yet to run into any. Ironically, I have to go to the CS’s to get that level of modernity.
LikeLike
I’d rather not name names. While she’s not in any position of direct authority over me, we are in the same circle. And though I know that I am quasi-anonymous by only using my initials, but someone who knows me could put two and two together pretty easily. I’m not trying to be mysterious. I’m just a tight-lipped person.
And, let me clarify, I didn’t repent from working for democrats, but to working to advance specific policies that I think are harmful.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I think we are really close on this issue. I think that schools should get out of the world-view business. As a theological matter, that’s the role of the family and church. As a matter of political philosophy, as long as schools are seen as a place to mold world view of our children, public schools will be the primary battlefield of the culture war.
In public school, the world-view instruction is usually smuggled in within concepts labeled “citizenship.” What it means to be a good citizen is very subjective. My fear is that as control over public schools centralizes in Washington (and thereby into the hands of a powerful few), that those with power will use citizenship training to advance their own political agenda. So while we have public schools, I will advocate for strong, local, independent school boards accountable to its neighbors, not a distant constituency.
LikeLike
As a sort of public announcement, I want to post this link to the “Joint Statement of Current Law” on religion in school. The document was put together from a diverse group of organizations committed to religious liberty. Notably, it’s endorsed by the ACLU and the Christian Legal Society. It’s not a definitive statement of all of the First Amendment rights that your child has, but it is a solid non-partisan starting point.
I’d like to add a note. This document should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling; the First Amendment likely guarantees greater rights than those listed here, but it’s impossible that it guarantees less.
This document was prepared in 1995. But it still accurately states the law. Remember, it’s just a starting point.
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html
LikeLike
RL: “I think that schools should get out of the world-view business.”
Is this part of your worldview?
LikeLike
Yes. I don’t deny that we all have a world view.
Let me add, though, that I don’t think advancing a world view in school is wrong by itself. The potential for error and abuse are just very high. Reducing the risk of error and abuse is strong, independent, local authority. That I think tips the scales in favor of private schools (sectarian and otherwise).
I’m not arguing that its sinful (or wrong) to send a child to Christian school. But I am insisting that its not sinful to send them to public school. I favor a case-by-case approach that looks at a lot of the features that we’ve discussed here. I, like Zrim, think that the schools power to indoctrinate is overstated. I think the Word of God is a hearty remedy. Its growing presence in schools bothers me not so much because I feel it will be effective, but because I see it as distracting.
LikeLike
RL: “Let me add, though, that I don’t think advancing a world view in school is wrong by itself.”
As long as that worldview is one that teaches that schools shouldn’t be in the business of worldviews?
RL: “The potential for error and abuse are just very high.”
Therefore the practice should be eliminated? This does not follow. Preaching is greatly abused every Sunday across the globe, but it does not follow that churches should get out of the business of preaching.
RL: “Reducing the risk of error and abuse is strong, independent, local authority.”
How about the authority of Jesus Christ who reveals Himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?
RL: “I’m not arguing that its sinful (or wrong) to send a child to Christian school.”
Spoken like well meaning atheist.
RL: “But I am insisting that its not sinful to send them to public school.”
And yet you are a libertarian?
RL: “I favor a case-by-case approach that looks at a lot of the features that we’ve discussed here.”
Here’s something I can agree with on the surface.
RL: “I, like Zrim, think that the schools power to indoctrinate is overstated.”
And yet it exists. Who do you want indoctrinating your children?
RL: “I think the Word of God is a hearty remedy. Its growing presence in schools bothers me not so much because I feel it will be effective, but because I see it as distracting.”
The Word of God is a hearty remedy but distracting? System error failure.
LikeLike
Jonah, you keep bringing up the plumber? As if your notion that a plumber shouldn’t cheat is the way a plumber glorifies God. Really, you’ve got to give up the plumbing example. It is not the strongest point in your worldview arsenal.
I’m glad to hear that you’re open to evaluating schools on a case by case basis. Is Dr. K.? Is he really advocating a case by case basis when he wants church polity to require Christian education for the children of office bearers? If he were open to case by case, there’d be no debate. And is he really open to a case by case basis for a secular faith? Or is he more willing to condemn NL and 2k views that don’t adhere to his own worldviewitis?
And what you say about the public school teacher needing to glorify God could also be made about the civil magistrate — and in these discussions, surprise, Dr. K. and MVDM often slide between education and the state. So if a teacher needs to glorify God so that children are in the right environment, so should a magistrate glorify God so that believers are in the right environment. Funny, that’s not how Paul argued about the Roman state of his time — which, btw, was hardly in the business of glorifying God.
LikeLike
CVD, so if you’re right, and here I’ll appeal to Jonah’s case by case basis, what is the best way to fight back? Is it to fight by saying your world view is antithetical to ours? Where does that take you? Or do you fight by appealing to things you hold in common, like rights and duties of citizenship, the nature of family authority as opposed to the local school board, and the liberties and citizens enjoy? It sure seems to me the way to try to get around the impasses is by looking at the political and legal rules governing the polity, not by ratcheting up the antagonism to the levels of heaven and hell. This was precisely Machen’s approach — Christian schools were important not for world view per se but for for political liberty and cultural diversity.
LikeLike
Some here who have wanted to contend that the public educational system is out to destroy Christian faith have also made an effort, in various ways, to say that they see no biblical mandate to compel believers to send their children to Christian day schools. I wonder what you all make of Article 14 in the URC Church Order which states:
The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practiced. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the minister(s) and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centered schooling, visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, engage in family visiting, exercise discipline in the congregation, actively promote the work of evangelism and missions, and insure that everything is done decently and in good order.
In particular, this language that “elders shall…promote God-centered schooling.†If it is true that Scripture compels nothing about day schooling, and to the extent that by “God-centered schooling†it is quite clear that what is meant is “Christian day schools,†then why are elders expected to promote it, and by extension, members expected to submit? Certainly, there is scriptural warrant for everything else elders are expected to promote (from purity of Word and sacrament to catechesis to discipline to evangelism to good order).
If you all agree then is no scriptural warrant to compel day schooling, then would you also agree this is language is inappropriate?
LikeLike
As a side-effect, I would say. The real goal is Progress. When Christianity (liberally considered) was on the side of Progress, then it was welcome. Now that it’s an obstructionist sort of thing, it’s not.
Absolutely. As a side-effect of my “something close to Biblicism”, I draw a hard line between actual commands of Scripture and matters of wisdom or preference.
Not being in the URC, I will have to trust you that this language means “Christian Day Schools” rather than Sunday School. Given the former, I can only scratch my head. It seems to be contrary to Belgic article 7 (and is certainly contrary to WCoF 20.2).
I would resign my eldership on principle if required to subscribe to the view that you describe.
For the other foot: How do you, as a hard-line Confessionalist, reconcile your obedience to the church with your disagreement with this article?
JRC
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this. My major problem is this:
I actually don’t want my child taught “values” divorced from the Scripture. It introduces a confusion between the law of man and the law of God. My compliant child (#1) already has a hard enough time telling the difference between “it’s the rule” and “God said so.”
That’s not to say that I don’t understand or appreciate the desire to be cult-neutral with respect to ethics in the public square. They’re trying for a fair playing field, right?
But in the end, being cult-neutral wrt ethics is to affirm an ethical standard that stands apart from God. Far from being a “natural law” that everyone secretly derives from their hidden knowledge of God written on their hearts, this kind of cult-neutral value system begins with the assertion, “Never mind what God has said; you don’t really know what you think you know, anyway.” My meta-ethical theory (divine command) is simply at odds with other theories.
This is in stark contrast with other subject matters. My theory of calculus fits well within the trajectory of mathematical theories today. My theory of the scientific method (even with its particular theistic overtones) is compatible with most modern theories of science, save for Dawkins’. But my theory of what ethics is is simply radically different from what the major players (Peter Singer, John Rawls, etc.) say that ethics is. I would have to reach back to Paul Ramsey to find my metaethic represented in the mainstream.
Which is to say, I’m not actually opposed to good citizenship! But I am opposed to my kids asking the question, “Why should I be a good citizen?” and have them told, “Because it’s the right thing to do” or “Because it makes everybody get along better.”
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Not being in the URC, I will have to trust you that this language means “Christian Day Schools†rather than Sunday School. Given the former, I can only scratch my head. It seems to be contrary to Belgic article 7 (and is certainly contrary to WCoF 20.2).
I can only surmise that “promote God-centered schooling” means “day schools,” since the phrase just before is “catechizing the youth.” Either this is simply redundant language, or it means to distinguish between catechesis and curriculum and implies that both are scripturally mandated. 2K URC ministers who want to defend this language have argued to me that it is the former, which is to say it is simply redundant. In which case, I am not sure why they dig their heels in when I suggest it needs revision (unless redudancy is a virtue? But I find the Dutch highly economic folk, so I doubt it). Given that the URC is a Dutch Reformed confederation, and given my own knowledge of the Dutch Reformed culture, this is very hard to believe, and it seems clear to me it is the latter. To be honest, I find the resistance to improve the langauge a glaring inconsistency amongst 2Kers. At the same time, I understand it. Education is a third rail amongst the Dutch Reformed.
For the other foot: How do you, as a hard-line Confessionalist, reconcile your obedience to the church with your disagreement with this article?
Short answer, not easily.
Extended answer, for one, I am CRC, not URC. I am not aware of similar language in the CRC Order. Since I am a disgruntled CRCer looking for a diginifed way out (ahem), the URC poses a problem for me on this point. I would certainly have to make my own views quite clear if we sought transfer, etc. I couldn’t in good conscience compel others or submit to something I am not convinced is biblically warranted. Indeed, my view would be to promote liberty before any particular form of curriculum.
LikeLike
RL: “Let me add, though, that I don’t think advancing a world view in school is
>>>RL: “I think the Word of God is a hearty remedy. Its growing presence in
>>>schools bothers me not so much because I feel it will be effective, but
>>>because I see it as distracting.â€
>>>The Word of God is a hearty remedy but distracting? System error failure.
I don’t have time to address all of these right now. But I need to address this one. My meaning was defeated by poor writing–a vague pronoun reference. The “it” in the sentence “Its growing presence in schools….” was meant to refer to attempted indoctrination in schools, not the “Word of God.”
I ended a poorly crafted paragraph with a poorly crafted sentence.
LikeLike
I actually don’t want my child taught “values†divorced from the Scripture…Which is to say, I’m not actually opposed to good citizenship! But I am opposed to my kids asking the question, “Why should I be a good citizen?†and have them told, “Because it’s the right thing to do†or “Because it makes everybody get along better.â€
Part of the problem, Jeff, is that when the project is to meet the needs of human beings (education) there is an inescapable affective dimension. Which is to say, you cannot teach kids without necessarily running into the categories of “values†or “virtues†or whatever. True, education is primarily an intellectual enterprise, but it is also secondarily affective. It seems to me that if one is going to opt for public schooling he’d better be prepared to understand what it means to be taught certain imperatives without certain other indicatives and be able to affirm it. Otherwise, it seems he’ll end up faulting a secular school for being secular and not Christian, which seems counter-intuitive.
For better or worse, I happen to think it is valuable for Christian children to learn the way general revelation actually works. I fail to see why it is so odious that they should learn that being virtuous citizens (i.e. law) is good in and of itself. And I fail to see why they can’t learn this in conjunction with a law-gospel understanding that is nurtured at home and in the church. After all, this is how you and I live in the common realm with others who don’t share our peculiar religion. We don’t fault our fellow citizens when they carry out imperatives apart from gospel indicatives. If you and I live as dual citizens in our vocations as adults, why would we teach our children to only live as single citizens?
Christian school advocates believe that the Christian school is there to nurture religious devotion in order that they are well prepared to go into the world with breast plate and girded loins. Fair enough. But I perceive that a secular education, insofar as it has an affective dimension to it, is a superior training ground for covenant children to learn from the very beginning what it means to have to live penultimately with those who don’t share their ultimate devotions.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
…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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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…”
LikeLike
Yes. The legal paradigm is officially (3), but my daughter understands it to be (2). We’ll be working on that.
JRC
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike