Over at the Catoosa County News, homeschooler Jeannie Babb Taylor has a bone to pick with the “exit strategy” put forth by some Southern Baptists. It is actually an interesting article, with a few characterizations of conservative Christians which I personally would contest. I’m not “running from evolution, homosexuality or even drugs,” but she provides enough quotes for her stance that she does not appear to be working solely from stereotypes. This, however, I found quite interesting, since it so closely adheres to my personal beliefs about the Church in America today:
If the souls of children were number one on the Baptist agenda, the churches would be focused on adding more educational options, not sabotaging the options we have now. Just imagine if church activists took the millions spent opposing abortion, homosexuality and public school, and simply funneled it into free Christian schools. Imagine if any child who wanted a Christian education could walk into the church and — at no cost — receive 12 years in math, history, science, language studies and Bible. Provide a superior education at no cost, and students will flock to the church in droves. Catoosa County News
I disagree with the apparent focus on daycares and schools. And I do believe it is entirely appropriate for church leaders to encourage their members to investigate what is being taught at their local public and private schools. But education is one of the central purposes of the church. And we should be taking it more seriously.
When the church sets up overseas missions, some of the first things we do is set up schools and hospitals. We care for the physical and spiritual needs of the community, becoming a light of hope in a dark world. What do we do in the United States? Set up a grassroots lobbying organization to make sure that homosexual marriage is made unconstitutional? Does that really save anyone?
It seems to me that the church has become reactionary. We respond to threats (real or perceived) rather than really confronting them at their roots.
There is no governmental solution which will make this a more virtuous nation. On the contrary, becoming a virtuous nation will solve our governmental problems. We should be focused on solving the very real needs in our communities more than imposing governmental restrictions based on Christian values. Submission to the law of God is voluntary. Codifying it into federal law helps no one.
After Peter’s confession, Christ says,
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. –Matthew 16:18
Unfortunately, I think many Christian organizations spend to much energy attempting to control movements within society through governmental regulations rather than focusing on the roots of the problem: personal sin. If we are on His side, we cannot lose. But we are fighting a spiritual battle, not a physical one.
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36
We judge our victories by the hearts of man, not legal precedent. It is all about education. The goal isn’t (or shouldn’t be) to “bankrupt the American educational establishment” but to edify the body. From Websters 1812:
ED”IFY, v.t. [L. oedifico; oedes, a house, and facio, to make.]1. To build, in a literal sense. [Not now used.] 2. To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally,and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness. Edify one another. 1 Thess.5. 3. To teach or persuade. [Not used.]
homeschooling
There is no governmental solution which will make this a more virtuous nation. On the contrary, becoming a virtuous nation will solve our governmental problems.
Amen
Now that is a religious view point on education that I could stand behind–the liberal that I am LOL
I see what you are saying and it is logical to me; it also pulls more toward a way of being and thinking rather than isolationing groups of people.
[Their ultimate desire is to end public education in America.] No I don’t. Having a free nation depends on having educated citizens. I have just been to Haiti where there is no option for hundreds and hundreds of the nations children. Less than 30% of the children of Haiti even begin school and less than 2% graduate. These children become adults who are illiterate. And, in Haiti that doesn’t just mean that you can’t read and write. Ninety percent of Haitians cannot even speak the official language of their country. There is a permanent lower class that has little hope of escaping the poverty they were born into. I don’t want to live like the Haitians live. What I want is to break the monopoly that currently is allowing our schools to operate so poorly.
[The anti-public education agenda fits nicely with the anti-women, anti-science, anti-Disney, anti-everything] I told you that Patriarch Path, Vision Forum, Ladies Against Feminism, etc. are doing more to hurt the image of homeschooling than anything the secular world could ever do. I was so disappointed to find that quote from Voddie Baucham [I want to bankrupt the American educational establishment one student at a time], he has been one of my all-time favorite theologians. Increasingly I see him aligning with the crew.
( In fact, he and his daughter are featured in the film Return of the Daughters.
I may have to pick a new favorite…
Shawna, for the most part liberals and conservatives want the same things, we just see different paths to achieve those goals. What I don’t like from either side is when the policies begin to force people to think a certain way. While I might tell you I think you are wrong on whatever issue we may disagree on, you will rarely find me recommending laws to govern it, or encouraging any institution to see things my way. : )
Julie, I think people get into a movement and it grows beyond common sense. I think these movements are reactionary and have not gone to the bible to see how they should act, but have instead merely gone the opposite way of the culture.
I definitely agree on education. And I REALLY wish that no one who attached Christian to their name talked about bankrupting the system. They can talk about it being a bankrupt or godless system. They can argue that Christian children shouldn’t be there in its current state. I think some of that becomes a bit extreme at times, too, but to actually state that your purpose is to destroy our education system? Where is there any precedent for such things in the bible?
Mmmm, I would have to disagree with you. “Education” is not one of the main functions of the church, salvation of souls is. The only mandate the church is given is to do work that will save men’s souls.
The primary duty of *Christians* however, is to, besides serve God, serve our fellow man. This is something we should be doing outside of the church. We should be taking orphans into our homes, looking after the widows in our own neighborhoods, and if we are interested in providing quality education that also is of a spiritual manner, then we should band together with other Christians to do so.
I would say that the John 18 verse you quoted is actually a very good one to point to for this – the kingdom is not of this world, it isn’t secular in nature AT ALL. So why should it be providing education?
~~Demeter
[ The only mandate the church is given is to do work that will save men's souls.] I disagree…
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19, 20
I do not believe that the church’s responsiblity ends at the point of salvation. The church is mandated to teach. Now we can argue whether the teaching includes math, scienc and social studies… and I guess that would depend on what you think education is.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Demeter. I was wondering if anyone would contest my purported purpose for the church.
But I think you are using the word education differently than I am. What does the bible tell us? To edify one another, equip the saints and go out into the world teaching and making disciples.
That is education.
Whether or not English and math has anything to do with it is perhaps debatable. I’d say that falls under the responsibility of the parents, with the support of the church. But “education” in its broader sense is definitely within the “job description” of the church.
I completely concur.
I’ve often thought of the thousands upon thousands of Christian parents who would “do something different educationally” if given the resources. One of my favorite lines to use with Christian public school advocates is to simply ask this question—
If someone gave you $50,000 with NO strings attached, but the money HAD to be used for education, and not college, would you put your child in a better school…a private christian school, or homeschool?
Overwhelmingly people say YES, of course they would.
The problem with a “free” education, Christian or otherwise, is that when you do something for someone that they can and ought to do for themselves, you weaken them. The weaker they become, the worse their condition. Mutlti-generations on welfare are a perfect example of this destructive trend.
Trying to provide a “free education” results in fewer educated people because there is no such thing as something for nothing.
In my experience working with very poor immigrants, I saw that doing too much did more damage than doing too little. An education system that provided low interest loans, scholarships which require community service, and work/study options would have a greater long-term success than a “free” education. Many churches and charities successfully use such programs.
Lindsey, that’s funny. I never thought of asking that…but then, I’m usually not so confrontational in person. I can be if I know you, but if I don’t, I kind of shrug off most controversy unless it is unavoidable.
Janine, I agree with you to a point. The difficulty I have is in looking at real; world examples. There are a number of nations with no free and public education system, all of them hopelessly impoverished. I think the relationship there is more correlative, and the issues are too complex to isolate a single factor like that, but I do think it bears mentioning.
Education is a bit different than other “free” services in that even without paying, you do work for it. I worked hard for my free education because I wanted something out of it. I think what we suffer from more is not so much that education is free, but that it is considered a right. The pressure for success is placed not on the student, but on the teacher. The teacher has not only the job of educating, but of motivating.
If we could place the responsibility for learning on the student and get rid of disruptive students, I think we could get somewhere. Even in our free and public system.
As an aside, I also think our free and public (and highly diversified) public education system coupled with our public libraries was a large part of the reason we fought and won the Revolutionary War. I’m not quite so willing to throw it ur entirely.
Like Julie, however, I believe we need to “break the monopoly.” We need true local control.
>As an aside, I also think our free and public (and highly diversified) public education system coupled with our public libraries was a large part of the reason we fought and won the Revolutionary War.
You lost me right there. Before and after the Revolution, schools were community supplied, but not free. Until at least the 1840s, most schools were privately owned and operated. It wasn’t until 1870 that all states provided “free” elementary schooling.
>I think what we suffer from more is not so much that education is free, but that it is considered a right.
I agree. Entitlement thinking is at the root of the problem.
Wonderful discussions here; this is productive. Great post, great comments. Nothing to add at the moment, gotta dash out the door, just wanted to pop in!
Janine, we had schools funded by tax dollars and run by local churches since the 1600s. It wasn’t a public system, like today, but there were places to go to get education. I look up my sources later. I’m just printing off some math stuff right now. : )
Actually, this is what I was referring to, at least in part:
A notable exception to parental education came in the Massachusetts colony. A law passed by the General Court of the Massachusetts colony in 1642 required civil authorities to see that families educate children, servants, and apprentices. In 1647, the Massachusetts colony enacted a School Code which required appointment of a teacher in every township of 50 households. The teacher’s salary was to be paid by parents or citizens of the community through a tax. Townships of 100 families were to set up grammar schools supported by the town.
Educator Samuel Blumenfeld says of these compulsory laws, “They were the ordinances of a religious community upholding the orthodoxy of its doctrines and providing for its future leadership. None of the other English colonies, with the exception of Connecticut which had been settled by Massachusetts Calvinists, enacted such education laws.”[1] Blumenfeld also points out that the Bible commonwealth, peculiar to the Massachusetts colony, “lasted no more than sixty years.”[2] With its demise and a relaxation of compliance with the old laws, private education boomed in the Massachusetts colony so that by 1720 private schools outnumbered public ones in Boston…
The number of schools continued to grow in pre-revolutionary America. By far, the majority were maintained by the churches and either provided educational opportunities for children of the church or for the poor. The number of charity schools increased in proportion to the influx of immigrants. Consequently, charity schools were more numerous in the northern colonies.
Education in the South was completely private until 1730, and by 1776, only five public schools existed in the South.[9] Educational opportunities were provided for poor children through apprenticeship programs. Tutors were popular among wealthy planters. Plantation schoolhouses were common where children, not only of the owner, but neighborhood children came to learn. “
Education in America
I shouldn’t have said free and public, really, because that is reminiscent of our current system. But there were other options, paid for by tax dollars or charity from very early in our history. Education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, regardless of ability to pay, although it certainly was different in form. It was highly diversified, which I think is key.
Ah.. now I understand what you were trying to say.
I agree that the old system worked better.
Thanks! I was hoping you’d come back and notice that I’m not a total dork. I think the diversification of the system was really what made our nation what it was. I have been reading essays written around that time period and they are fascinating. I don’t think they appreciated how much certain aspects of our education “system” of the time actually contributed to the notions of liberty that sustained us through the war.
Benjamin Rush in particular said some odd things. His republic sounds more like Plato’s Republic.
The Catholic Church used to have such a system for its members, unfortunately since the 1960’s it has been decimated. Tuitions went from being reasonable to pricing out those with moderate incomes or larger families (our local ones cost $6-$6.5k per child per year for elementary and $10-15k per child per year for secondary). At the same time, the curriculum was secularized and the percentage of non-Catholic students increased to a majority at many schools. None of the Catholic schools offer daily Mass the way my DH’s did growing up and some of them have even eliminated weekly Mass attendance. There is only nominal difference between the Catholic schools and the secular private schools in our area.
I’ve heard similar complaints from Protestant friends about the local Episcopalian and Lutheran schools. They are perfectly happy to accept financial support from the parent denominations, but when it comes to actually *teaching* the faiths, they’ve abdicated that mission
Thanks, Crimson Wife. I have heard that…and the complaint that a lot of private Christian schools aren’t much different than public schools…they just keep it hidden better.
I think it is great when the church wants to serve the local community…so long as they do not water down the message. It should be about presenting the truth to the community, not attracting more donors.
I am not Baptist, and I am not Christian, either, but I had to comment on this post.
I was glad to see someone addressing a spiritual problem that affects all of us.
I think that our nation has been impoverished spiritually in the past 30 – 40 years because the religious institutions have moved from a focus on the good of the community to a concept of salvation as being only between the individual and the Eternal. This is a very narrow concept of salvation that is selfish and exclusive. It allows communities to fall apart while a few individuals prosper temporarily.
Perhaps we do not agree on theology, but I know Jesus is quoted speaking the great ethical commandment from the Holiness code in Leviticus: “You shall love Adonai your G-d with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind. And you shall love your neighbor, for your neighbor is like (transliteration: K’mocha) yourself.”
The holiness code tells us in a series of ethical commandments concerning our relationship to our fellow human beings that you cannot love G-d if you do not love and serve others.
I agree with the author of the newspaper commentary quoted, it would be better for our communities if the churches used their considerable money and influence to teach, to educate, to feed the hungry, and shelter the homeless, and to strengthen the community.
These are the building blocks of a just, ethical, and moral society.
The attempt to legislate what is not practiced, from the perspective of a self-righteous sense of exclusiveness, is bound to fail because it does not come from a true sense of compassion. It will also fail to influence or persuade non-believers, who will see and condemn the selfishness of the behaviors.
We may not agree about theology, but those who believe in G-d would be better put to demonstrate G-d’s great compassion and bounty, than to continue in behaviors that show contempt and callousness toward our fellow human beings.
It’s past time for believers to put our money where our mouths are.
Just popped by to say that I enjoyed the intelligent discussion here. This is the kind of dialogue I hoped to spark when I wrote “No baptist left behind.”
Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.OntheOtherHandColumn.blogspot.com
Thanks, Jeannie. I noticed you had linked to the entry, but didn’t have time to leave a comment or read much beyond that. Thank you for stopping by!