Blending In
Whew, that was a close one. The PCA General Assembly managed to slap down a proposed resolution encouraging its members to remove their children from government schools and give them a distinctly Christian education. Imagine that. Here is the text of the proposed resolution:
Whereas, The Bible commands fathers to bring up their children in the training and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), and all parents who have had a child baptized in the Presbyterian Church in America have taken a vow to strive by all the means of God’s appointment to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (BCO 56-5), and
Whereas, A truly Christian education begins with the fear of the Lord (Pr.9:10), and teaches children to think biblically about all of life (2Cor.10:5; Rom.12:2; Dt.6:6-9), and
Whereas, The public school system does not offer a Christian education, but officially claims to be “neutral†with regard to Christ, a position that Christ Himself said was impossible (Lk.11:23), and
Whereas, The public schools are by law humanistic and secular in their instruction, and as a result the attending children receive an education without positive reference to the Triune God, and
Whereas, Some courageous teachers in our congregations disregard this law. Obeying God rather than men, they try to give their students a truly Christian education (Acts 4:18-20). This resolution should not be construed to discourage these adult believers who faithfully labor as missionaries to unbelieving colleagues and students. However, these rare exceptions should not lead anyone to believe the public schools are regularly giving children a truly Christian education.
Whereas, Sending thousands of PCA children as “missionaries†to their unbelieving teachers and classmates has failed to contribute to increasing holiness in the public schools. On the contrary, the Nehemiah Institute documents growing evidence that the public schools are successfully converting covenant children to secular humanism, and
Whereas, We are squandering a great opportunity to instruct these children in the truth of God’s word and its application to all of life;
Therefore, be it resolved that the 33rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America encourages all her officers and members to remove their children from the public schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education, for the glory of God and the good of Christ’s church.
In the comments of the PCA GA blog on this issue, many of the opponents of the resolution rely on the tried and true standard of personal experience to buttress their arguments against this radical resolution. I appreciate the mission-oriented mindset of their denomination, and in that vein, several express concern that if Christian children do not populate public schools, then they lose an opportunity to be salt and light and spread the gospel in a dark place.
In light of this competing view of education models being debated in Christendom, you might want to read this excerpt from Safely Home by Tom Eldredge, comparing Greek and Hebrew models of education. I’m currently reading the book, which gives background on the deterioration of ancient Greek and Roman cultures as they abandoned patriarchalism and embraced a statist role in family life and education. The Greek model for education also has been making inroads in Christian homeschools as parents sometimes seem more concerned about educating Baby Einsteins than training disciples for Christ’s kingdom.
Education is not neutral. Impressionable covenant children spending half their waking hours under the tutelage of non-Christian teachers in humanistic institutions (not counting the hours of homework every week, studying what amounts to subversive propaganda and rewritten or biased history) seems like a no-brainer to me. But I only had a public school education, so what do I know?
June 20th, 2005 at 2:56 am
May I commend to you and your readers an additional book on this subject George Roche is the author of The Fall of the Ivory Tower: Gvt Funding, Corruption, and the Bankrupting of American Higher Education. Also worth reading is his Education in America.
Years ago, I was well informed by Samuel Blumenfeld’s good book, Is Public Education Necessary? It was so interesting to learn that even in the early days of America, towns had a variety of schools: private, home, and public (ones for poor). Futhermore, our theological hero, Calvin and his town’s General Assembly created *public* schools, albeit under ecclesiastical control.
June 20th, 2005 at 4:47 am
Amen, Carmon, amen. My oldest 2 were in public school until they were 13 and 15, respectively. The oldest was very impressionable and the next youngest was as well, but not quite as much. They both were tainted by the experience.
On the contrary, the Nehemiah Institute documents growing evidence that the public schools are successfully converting covenant children to secular humanism
Yep.
I will never put my children back in public school again willingly. As I’ve said elsewhere, they’ll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands!
June 20th, 2005 at 5:12 am
Just curious, Carmon, do you know what the vote tally was?
June 20th, 2005 at 6:03 am
That ole “missions argument” is a lovely sounding argument. It just doesn’t hold up. Kind of like the socialization accusation. I think it was Dr. Brian Ray that pointed out that missions is a very good thing. On the other hand how many of us would send our seven-year-old out to Africa, completely unattended by adults, to be a missionary there? Why is it such a leap to keep our kids at home and not send them out to be missionaries until they are mature?
Our family goes many places together to be “salt and light.” My children have been known to walk up to people and witness to them. Places like the grocery store, the library, Walmart, etc… They are under our supervision, but I would argue that they have witnessed to more people without loss to our convictions more than many of those publicly edumecateddd children.
June 20th, 2005 at 7:00 am
You know as we send off our children to be missionaries in the public schools we are neglecting a whole group of children who need our children to be salt and light to them. Children in private religious schools where Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, and other false religions are taught are being abandoned by Christians who choose to send their children to the public schools where they can receive a safe neutral education. There are some zelous people who claim that it is wrong to send our children to schools which teach them false religions, they claim that such will pervert their minds, but we know differently. We were ourselves schooled in false religion schools and we turned out great. If we do not stop this movement to keep children out of the false religion schools we will have abandoned those children who attend school there, further more we will have been guilty of overprotection of our children, and legalism against those parents who feel led by God to send their children to these schools. In conclusion, if a parent wishes to send their child to a school which teaches false religion it must be their choice and the church should not stand against it.
June 20th, 2005 at 7:02 am
I am not surprised by this at all. What we saw as memebers of a PCA church in Atlanta for almost 10 years would support this vote. When I mentioned to my husband last week what this pastor was going to attempt his comment was, “I wish they would pass it, but there is absolutely NO way!” He was a math teacher is the public system before going to France under the mission organization of the PCA. He is now a headmaster of a classical Christian school and says that everyone thinks that their public school is the exception. But the bottom line for all of us is are we giving our children, even as homeschool parents, a truly Christian education based and saturated by God’s Word and His principles? Even many homeschoolers are not doing this but are caught up in which curriculum is best for . . .
We are not memebers of a PCA church any more because what we saw was a desire to be Christians in the middle of the mud and say, “Hey! Isn’t this great? We can be Christian’s and still be cool!” This is not true of ALL by any means, but true of what we saw in Atlanta.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
We recently left our PCA church (also in Atlanta). One of the big straws that broke the camel’s back was when a father in our congregation approached the session because he wanted his children to be homeschooled and his wife refused. The session and pastor told him he could not require her to homeschool because you “cannot bind someone else’s conscience”. They obviously don’t understand submission either – well there is actually so much in that statement that I won’t even begin to expound on.
June 21st, 2005 at 7:58 am
The Southern Baptist Convention did the very same thing…Surprise, Surprise
June 23rd, 2005 at 6:38 am
I was only in public school for 3 1/2 years–high school years–and its taken me at least twice that
to remove the humanistic junk instilled during that time.
June 24th, 2005 at 5:54 am
I have bever left a comment before but my husand and I have been faithful readers for a long time. We are committed homeschoolers that would never send our children to be be salt and light in the public schools. We believe that based on what the Bible teaches we can only carry out our resposibility to our children of their training by homeschooling. We are a PCA pastor and his wife. My husband was a the PCA general assembly. Not every one that voted against it believe that public schools are great or that kids shoud be sent as missionaries. Many that voted against it are homeschoolers. IN fact few of the PCA pastors I know use the public schools. Here was many people’s concern. One they are not prepared to call it sinful to send children to public schools. Those are powerful words to tell someone they are breaking the vows they took at the baptism of their children by sending them to public school. Many were concerned about making this sort of edict and not offering an alternative option for the FEW who cannot homechool. I.E. the abandoned wife left alone to support her children. Here is what my husband would like to see take place in the PCA. A committment by the pastor and leadership to train and teach their congregation on what the Word of God says about education and what education in the public schools is like. Many congregants have blinders on when it comes to public schools and are ignorant or simply wish to deny what the Bible teaches in regard to our responsibilities to our children. This would be in order to pave the way for such a resolution or make to where such a resolution isn’t necessary. Would we like to see such a resolution pass–yes–do we understand why it didn’t–yes. I don’t think the PCA-GA blog told the whole story and thought people might want to hear another first-hand account. BTW, I don’t know what the vote was and don’t understand exactly how the whole process works. But my uderstanding from what my husband has told me is that it first goes to a committee that studies it and makes a recommendation to the assembly. They recommended a no, but he said that at last a third voted for it as it was sent to a minority report(whatever that is–I think they study it further). He said this was actually a positive thing for the proposal and shows strong support.
June 24th, 2005 at 7:08 am
Carmon, this is slightly off-topic, but in reference to the phrase “covenant children” that you used. I come from an entirely different theological perspective (Church of Christ, it’s a Restoration denomination, Arminian in theology), but read LOTS of reformed blogs and I’m interested in learning more about that theology, particularly concept of the covenant family. Do you know of any resources that would explain this concept simply and concisely, referencing Scripture?
Ironically, although it’s not a part of our denomination’s vocabulary, our church is exploring the idea of a ‘family covenant’ to work to strengthen the families in our congregation. Whatever our theology, I think we’d all agree that families in the Church are being attacked in a major way, and our shepherds are ready to wage war against anyone and anything that weakens them (our families).
June 24th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Jema…covenant theology is the idea that God doesn’t only deal with us as individuals, but as families, churches and members of communities and nations. In those various spheres, God has ordained what some call a “federal head” to lead and represent the members of that covenant body. For example, in a family, the father is the head of the household. He is ultimately responsible for the decision-making and direction of the family, and his wife is his help-meet in the family government. As in the way our “federal” government operates, with a president who represents the people of our country and who has proscribed duties in which he rules, so a father and husband represents his family. The members of his household are part of his covenant with God and under the same requirements of that covenant as the covenant head.
I am from a Presbyterian background, and this is why we baptize babies…not to ensure their salvation, but because the faith of the parents establishes a relationship with God for our children, they are “in the covenant” though their salvation is not guaranteed because of it. Covenant families consider that it is likely their children will continue in that covenant and receive salvation, at the same time carefully training them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If you understand covenant to mean “an agreement God makes with His people,” and you remember the covenants God made in the O.T. with men like Abraham, then you see that those covenants not only affected the one who covenanted, but his entire household and his descendants. You can also see the principle of federal headship in the way Adam’s sin affected mankind, and the way Christ’s righteousness is imputed to His people…both are acting as federal heads.
Here is an article to explain the concept of covenant more in depth. I think that it is an important thing to understand in order to make proper sense of the biblical hierarchy in families, as so many chafe at the idea of the headship of the husband and the helpmeet role of the wife.
June 24th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Rachel…thanks for giving your perspective on this. I would like to address it, if I get a chance, tomorrow. As Scarlett O’Hara says (though she is not my role model!), “After all, tomorrow is another day.”
June 26th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Carmon, it sounds like our congregation (our denomination doesn’t have a hierarchy to make decisions for the entire denomination) is really moving toward that sort of covenant — minus the batism. Our preacher is doing sermons all summer, moving toward a public affirmation of actual covenants written by each family, particularly by the head of each family. I don’t know if it would be called Patriarchal, but by definition, it would be since the teaching being done for it is that the father is the authoritative head of the family in this process (excepting those families where there is no father). In that case, the elders of the congregation will be affirming their commitment (and the entire church’s) to helping those mothers teach and lead their children so they will understand the family covenant concept even though they aren’t living in a family with an earthly father.