In the category of harmonic convergence, Rabbit Bret and Brothers B recently huffed and puffed about a PCA pastor from Richmond, Indiana who had the temerity to write a letter to the local newspaper editor in which he argued for more government oversight of homeschooling.
In his 19-point reply (with subpoints, no less) the good rabbi makes this not so subtle rejoinder:
Tom, the chief person you’ve offended is Jesus Christ in heaven above. You have advocated the State to usurp the prerogatives that God has given to the parents in order that the State might play God to the family. Your advocacy for increased State control is an advocacy that leads to the deterioration of the family and the enhancement of the State. A State, I might remind you, which is hostile to Biblical Christianity.
Weighing in for the Baylys is brother Tim who has this reasoned response (though, a drive-by snipe at Covenant Seminary ended up provoking the most discussion):
It takes a village? Actually, no: that village is a gang or a group home.
What it really takes is a home. It takes a father and mother. It takes God and the natural sovereigns He’s put over sons and daughters–Papa and Mama.
Those authorities that undermine or remove the authority of fathers and mothers by transferring their authority to the state are rebels against God.
Keeping the cosmic convergence on a roll, I too would come down on the side of Bret and Tim. I affirm limited government and the value of mediating institutions, starting at the very basic, natural law, level of the family. On matters of policy, I might favor some kind of interaction among families and local school authorities, just at a meet and greet level so that both sides actually function as neighbors, another association that yields mediation. So I understand and approve generally of their concern about the state controlling more and more of daily life.
What I call attention to though is the contradiction between these pastors’ call for limited government regarding the family and their frequent requests for the state to uphold and defend the true religion. To put this matter graphically, would Bret and Tim be so willing to see a Wiccan family conduct home schooling? Maybe they would given their opposition to big government.
But how big a government would you have if the Westminster Assembly was right about the powers of the civil magistrate and Hilary Clinton as the next president of the United States had the power and duty to call and preside over the PCA General Assembly or the CRC Synod? At this point I believe Bret and Tim might finally come around to a 2k outlook (mind you, I know longer speak of worldviews).
Old Life 
I am shocked at the depth of “rage” (his words) and the tone of language used by “Rabbi Bret.” One thing missed in all his raging about the Pagan State intruding into families and education: the whole system of required education, with goals of universal literacy, educated citizens and community, is all a matter of law. Why not come out with a call to repeal mandatory education laws?
The key verb operating in Bret’s screed: “control” – He’s not interested in liberty but in control. If you can wrap schooling and education under ministerial/ecclesiastic control, so much the better for control-oriented ministers.
LikeLike
So, should I be offended – or worried? My comments above have been lifted by Bret over at ironink and attributed to Jolene Z. Since he couldn’t get the name right, why am I surprised he picked the wrong gender to assign to me. Then the comments are patronized with calling this person “honey.” And then Jolene (or is it me?) is accused of smoking peyote, and living on a different planet.
I suppose I’m late to the party, as I realize there’s no reasoning or coherent conversation with ironink.org.
Note: this is all in a new post called “educating Dr. Hart.” Conveniently separated from the original post and context.
LikeLike
Cris, take heart. Bret’s lack of reasoning was responsible for the Baylys banning him. Imagine that — exceeding the Baylys’ threshold of vitriol.
LikeLike
The fine people at “American Vision” call our PCA pastor a “heretic”: http://americanvision.org/3637/a-clueless-pastor-wants-more-state-control-of-education/
I guess the Ninth Commandment doesn’t play well in theonomic circles.
LikeLike
I would contend that a law should be passed that makes it illegal for parents to send their children to government schools…
The institutionalizing of abiding educational legalism for which Bret contends here has been realized in the PRC.
The most help you can be Tom is to understand how education is part of a Christian world and life view…
This is actually quite helpful from Bret. Education is indeed a vital facet of Reformed worldviewism which seems to understand curriculum to be at least as important as (in most cases more than) catechesis as a way to keep covenant promises. One difficulty for worldviewism is that the confessions and catechisms no where speak of curriculum but only of catechesis. Another is that education corresponds to cultural projects, but catechesis corresponds to cultic ones. So the extent to which worldviewers conflate curriculum with catechesis is the extent to which they also confuse cult and culture. One argument is that the school is an extension of the home, which suggests that spheres don’t so much overlap one another as some beget others. The ironic upshot here is how the home actually ends up being undermined or co-opted by another institution. Religious worldviewers actually sound a lot like the secular worldviewers who over-realize the project of education to be about the making and shaping of human beings. What the religious worldviewers, in their lathering about the evils of state education, don’t seem to ever grasp is that the secular worldviewers who designed public education have long since let go their transformationalist ideals about education and by and large have understood that it is the home that makes people. Sure, there is always the occasional horror story that involves unfortunate over reaching, etc., and the religious worldviewers love to grab hold of it to fortify their fears, but that’s more an example of mistake than the State gobbling up everyone’s first born. I guess mistakes aren’t as exciting as ghost stories.
The key to the contradiction of the hard worldviewers may be that they aren’t as concerned for the size of government as they are the kind of government. Something tells me that were the government to become explicitly Christian instead of implicitly secular then bigger would be better.
LikeLike
Chris nailed it – it is all about control – it usually is with Christian rabbis.
LikeLike
DGH: “Cris, take heart. Bret’s lack of reasoning was responsible for the Baylys banning him. Imagine that — exceeding the Baylys’ threshold of vitriol.”
The Baylys’ threshhold for banning commenters is very low if you disagree with them or criticize Doug Wilson. The syncophants at the Baylyblog can spew as much vitriol as they like, but those who disagree walk on thin ice.
But the point you make in the post is a very good one. So many 2k opponents (and political conservatives) are very inconsistent in their view of government. On the one hand it should stay out of things like family education, but on the other it should step in to forbid abortion and other evils. I’m all for limited government, and agree that they should leave home-schooling content alone. But I also believe they should stay out of things like abortion and gay marriage (or marriage altogether). I would much rather abortion cease in this country because people are awakend to its sinfulness, not because a law of the state forbids it. But men like the Baylys are only willing to oppose 2k so long as it fits their social and political agenda.
LikeLike
But I also believe they should stay out of things like abortion…
Given that we have a 14th amendment, I feel that the government ought to do what it says it will do, and forbid abortion (without due process).
LikeLike
Jeff, this is where I think all the points about silence become relevant. Zeke thinks government should stay out of certain things, you think otherwise. While it does speak clearly about you marrying Zeke, which is to say your personal behavior, it is dead silent on which one of your political outlooks gets spiritual favor. I happen to agree with you politically, but I take great exception to Paul who would probably find some logical way to discipline Zeke for his disagreeable political views.
LikeLike
Right, I’m speaking to Zeke in re my opinion on the matter, and not as an ecclesiastical pronouncement. In fact, even more so, I’m speaking in terms of American law, even without reference to Scripture.
See, I can wear hats, too. I just stack them instead of switching them. 🙂
LikeLike
Jeff, if you’re “speaking your [political] opinion on the matter and not making an ecclesiastical pronouncment” it sounds like you’re saying that Scripture is silent on your political opinion, which sounds pretty 2k. Yet you continue to contest the 2k rhetoric of silence. Maybe you’re theoretically opposed to 2k but a practical 2ker? That’s not at all unusual, but it is inconsistent.
And if you’re making your point by way of “American law without any reference to Scripture” that sounds pretty close to saying that general revelation is sufficient to govern civil life, a principle you say you oppose. Maybe more evidence here of a theoretical-practical disconnect.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I don’t get your legal argument. The Fourteenth Amendment does not place a direct ban on any private action, just state action. Section 5 could authorize Congress to create laws which may regulate private action, so long as certain criteria are met. See, e.g., City of Bourne v. Flores; United States v. Morrison.
In abortion, the actor is private. Therefore, I don’t see how abortion offends the Fourteenth Amendment, even if one accepts arguendo that a fetus is entitled to a measure of due process.
In responding, I’d appreciate your providing case cites (although pincites are not necessary).
LikeLike
Bob, I’m not a lawyer, so my reading of the Constitution is amateur. Still, here’s how I see it:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As I see it, since all 50 states have laws on the books against murder, those laws ought to apply equally to all persons, including unborn persons.
LikeLike
Jeff,
As I see it, since all 50 states have laws on the books against murder, those laws ought to apply equally to all persons, including unborn persons.
I agree with you here, and I am sure many other 2kers do as well. However Zeke is arguing a valid position on abortion inasmuch as he is calling it a sin, presumably because he views the unwarranted taking of human life to be a violation of the 6th commandment. The fact that you aren’t making ecclesiastical pronouncements or arguing that there should be kind of proves the point that there is Christian liberty on what positions one can take on contemporary political issues. Or to take it a step further there isn’t a “worldview” derived from Scripture of Reformed confessions that demands a singular stance here, or in the case of the post on education, or just about any other political issue.
If you can employ 2k reasoning here without needing Scripture to norm the content of the disagreement on exactly what the government’s position/role ideally should be on abortion, why not elsewhere? We can affirm your insistence that Scripture ought to norm the manner of the discussion, insofar as the discussion should be conducted in a God-honoring manner.
LikeLike
Jeff,
To pick up where I left off, would the content-manner distinction be helpful in the age long debate over Christian plumbing? To be a little more precise, can you affirm that Scripture has nothing to say to the content (and execution) of plumbing, namely what the modern trade of plumbing consists of a functional understanding of what plumbing consists of and how it is properly executed/installed; but that it does prescribe the manner in which the content/execution of plumbing is to be conducted, namely to the glory of God?
If this were the case, would we need Christian trade or professional schools at all? Wouldn’t the Christian gain proper understanding on the manner of his work as he sits under the ministry of the Word on the Lord’s Day and through his own private prayer and reading of Scripture? If this is the case, maybe secular trade schools and professional schools and universities might be the best route for someone to learn the in’s and out’s of their vocation.
LikeLike
Jed, since I’m not a plumber, let me speak to science. I think the content/manner distinction accounts for about 90% of the issues that might arise in the execution of one’s job. In physics jargon, “content” and “manner” are approximately orthogonal. But the other 10% has substantial overlap. Here are some issues:
(1) The manner in which one goes about one’s research (Integrity in data collection? Diligence in statistical analysis? Integrity and transparency in reporting the results?) affects the content of one’s conclusions.
Two words: Climate Science.
(2) The manner in which one goes about one’s teaching (Are students created in the image of God and therefore worthy of time and attention? Or are they a distraction from research?) affects the content of one’s teaching.
I would imagine that you could probably think about some issues in the trade of plumbing in which content is affected by manner also.
To go back to an earlier example: if a plumber were dishonest, I would never recommend him as a plumber even if I happened to know him to be skilled.
But to your last point: Yes, I often steer students to secular colleges instead of Christian ones. For one thing, I think it’s probably better for a student to get his Bible teaching from his church rather than from the Bible department of Baylor or Messiah or Eastern (maybe even Calvin?). There are exceptions, of course.
For another, at a secular college, you know going in that the spiritual content that your professors provide is suspect. Whereas at Christian colleges, there is an element of trust that is probably unwarranted.
But do notice that there is spiritual content there. I don’t view secular colleges as “spiritually neutral.”
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think this is why this particular discussion might never actually end, if I didn’t know that “the Bible speaks to x” presupposed this back-and-forth I’d have a have a hard time disagreeing with anything you said. I know that you aren’t claiming that a climatologist can only have the right conclusions on climate change if she is a Christian, or if she is allowing Scripture to norm the manner of her collection and interpretation of climate data. So I am confused as to why the convergence you are speaking of is normed by Scripture or is .
Let’s go back to the plumbing illustration, and say that content/execution and manner converge when the plumber hands you the bill for installing a new water heater. Assuming he is a skilled plumber and he charged a reasonable rate and his bill reflected an accurate time to complete the task, is there any way that you would know (without asking) if Scripture was norming the manner of his billing practices? Or in the case of a climatologist whose data concluded that we are in a period of climate change, however it is not clear that humans have impacted climate change in any demonstrable way, would you conclude that this scientist is a Christian?
I am not saying that the Scriptures couldn’t be influential for how a teacher teaches (manner, or content selection), but is knowing Scripture a necessary precondition to teaching science, or math, or wood shop properly?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is the State that must act to deprive one of life, liberty, or property without due process. Our courts have never interpreted the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment as a guarantee that the State will protect individuals from harms carried out by private actors. We simply don’t have a Constitutional right to be free from the tortious acts of private individuals (assuming arguendo that a fetus is entitled to due process in the same way that a private individual is). If you could show that the physician or the mother were acting as proxies for the state, then your argument may have some legs. But such arguments have generally only succeeded when a state actor is complicit in the private tort, e.g., a jailer purposefully releasing a prisoner into the hands of a lynch mob. But inaction alone does not give rise to a violation of the Due Process Clause.
Besides, as I’ve said before, if legally protected human life starts at conception, then oral contraceptives are as big a killer as abortion. In that sense, Walgreens and CVS are just as “evil” as Planned Parenthood (to borrow the exaggerated moralistic lingo of the Baylys). It is well known that Planned Parenthood’s customers are largely poor and/or young, and are nearly always unmarried. On the other hand, users of oral contraceptives are often affluent (or at least middle-class) and white. Funny, isn’t it, that the life of the fetus starts at conception (and possesses expansive due-process rights under the Constitution) when the mother is unmarried, poor, and young, but not so when the mother is older, white, and more affluent? Or maybe we’re just much more willing to overlook the indiscretions of the types of people who move in the same social circles as we do.
LikeLike