Christians and Public Schooling, II

Part I

In part 1 I gave a bit of background on the personal resolution that was offered to the General Assembly of the PCA asking the denomination to "encourage" its members to withdraw their kids from public schools.  Today I want to begin talking about why I voted against it.

The longer I think about it the more reasons I come up with to not support it. and I'll share some of those in future posts.  Today I'll talk about the whole issue of position statements and freedom of conscience.

In the PCA we've got a book full of position papers that are non-binding.  We've studied such issues as freemasonry, six-day creationism, divorce and remarriage and a host of others.  Most of those papers are the report of a study committee and for most of them, there is just one position.  But some of them include minority reports.  In those cases both reports stand and are offered more along the lines of pastoral advice.  They don't have constitutional authority.  So for instance, I forget which one was the majority and which one was the minority report in the freemasonry issue, but there are churches which believe a member of the masons can be ordained as an officer in the PCA and some say he can't.  The position paper itself would not have binding authority in such a matter.

This resolution, encouraging parents to pull their kids out of public schools, had it been passed, would have had the same effect.  It would stand as pastoral advice but really could not be used against someone if they intended to make it a disciplinary issue.

On the other hand, had such a resolution been passed it would have been different than one of those position papers that came out of a study committee.  I'm no expert in ecclesiastical bureaucracy, but if such a motion had been passed it seems to me that it would have carried greater weight in terms of being an "official position" of the PCA. It would have a kind of unofficial or informal authority that would be very weighty.

In such a case, though the wording of the resolution was careful to be non-binding, it would still carry far greater weight.  What was intended as mere "encouragement" or pastoral advice would become the de-facto standard by which the schooling decisions of individual parents would be measured.  Hence, I can't help believing that, had such a motion passed, it would create an assumption of negligence on the part of parents who chose not to pull their kids out of public schools.  There is no PCA gestapo which would go around checking on such things, but I think a new mindset would be created in the minds of some. 

Parents who did not pull their kids from public school would automatically be put on the defensive, having to explain why they didn't heed the "encouragement" of the denomination.  I am sure that advocates of this resolution understand and have compassion on the single mothers and low-income families and others in various positions which prevent them from pulling kids out of public schools.  But I am saying it is wrong to put them in a position where they have to defend their actions.

For scriptural justification of my position I would point to the example of the Pharisees who added laws to the law, thus incurring the displeasure of Jesus.  I would also point to the example of the Galatian church which incurred the censure of Paul for succumbing to pressure to conform themselves to extra-biblical commands of men.  More to the point though, I would refer you to Romans 14:1-5:

 

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. ² One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ³ The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. ⁴ Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

⁵ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

The question I would raise is whether or not the choice of where to educate our children is legitimately a disputable matter.  In reading the text of the resolution which was offered to the General Assembly I can't help but assume that its authors conclude that this is not a disputable matter.  I'll take up the specific arguments of the resolution in another post but I'll simply note for now that these arguments are similar to the arguments that could be offered for not eating meat and for regarding one day as more sacred than another.   Yet, in those cases Paul commanded us not to judge others.

In our reformed confessional tradition we also place a high value on liberty of conscience.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20, paragraph 2 says:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.  So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. 

Hodge, A., Hodge, C., & Hodge, A. 1996. The confession of faith : With questions for theological students and Bible classes. With an appendix on Presbyterianism by Charles Hodge. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. (electronic ed. based on the 1992 Banner of Truth reprint.). Christian Classics Foundation: Simpsonville SC

I don't contend that this resolution is contrary to the Word of God, but it is "beside it."  And our consciences are not to be bound by things that are "beside" the Word of God.

In what I am about to say I want to raise the issue of legalism and I want to offer a pre-emptive disclaimer.  I do think there are a lot of legalists in this world whom we need to be on guard against, but I don't think that the movers of this resolution are necessarily legalists.  "Legalist" has become one of those trump card terms that people throw into a discusssion to basically villify their opponents and end the discussion.  And usually we define legalists as those who have convictions that I don't happen to like.  This has the effect of rendering all but the most basic of convictions out of order. 

I offer that disclaimer because of the great degree of respect I have for the movers of this resolution - I think they are men of conviction, not men of legalism.  Having said that, I think a quick illustration of how legalism develops can show some of the problems with where such a resolution could go.

I may completely butcher this illustration, but I have a vague memory of a story in one of Jerry Bridges books about cars, roads and lakes.  Imagine that there is a curving road that goes alongside of a lake and imagine that warning signs are posted on the road "Danger-Lake Ahead-Slow Down."  Such signs are legitimate and serve a good purpose - to keep people from driving off the road into the lake and drowning themselves. 

However, we all know that there are many people out there who don't pay attention to warnings, and despite these signs, people still frequently end up driving into the lake and killing themselves from time to time.  So, a group of citizens get together and decide the warning signs are not enough and they build a guardrail on the road to keep cars from going over.  The trouble with that is, some cars just go too fast and crash through the guardrails and go into the lake.

So, the same group of citizens gets together and says "the signs and guardrails aren't working, we need to close down the road and build another road a mile away from the lake."  This way people can't even get close to the lake and are very free from danger.  Trouble is, the lake is still visible in the distance and those crazy kids in their four wheel drives remember how much they used to like the lake.  So they go off road from time to time and sometimes, when they aren't paying attention, they still fall into the lake.

Finally, the citizens decide that even that isn't working, so they rebuild the road, only this time it is five miles away from the lake.  You can't even see the lake, it provides no temptation at all.

The good and godly desire all throughout this story has been to protect people from drowning in the lake.   It is the duty of the town fathers to warn the people about the dangers of driving their cars into the lake.  But beyond that, things get fuzzy.  Each new step, from the guardrail to the new road five miles away assumes that the citizens are incapable of governing their own lives and so we must govern their lives for them.  If I were a town father I would be all for the guardrail, that's a reasonable and prudent precaution.  But I think building the road five miles away would be unnecessary at best and harmful at worst.  I am not sure where in the process from guardrail to new road five miles away that I would change my opinion, but it would happen somewhere along the line. In this example, everything beyond the signs warning of danger up ahead are, in my mind, things which are "beside" it.

In my opinion, public schooling is not the lake, apostasy is.  The lake we want to avoid is the peril of our kids abandoning their faith.  The resolution to encourage us to pull kids out of public schools is somewhere between a guardrail and a road five miles away.  The illustration breaks down a bit here because our choice of schooling is not the sole determining factor in whether or not our kids hold on to or abandon the faith, but for the sake of illustration I'll let it stand for now.

One of the things that is tough for people with strong convictions is that they can't understand why others don't share their convictions and why they don't see and react to perceived dangers the way they do.  There is an implicit assumption that those who don't share their convictions just don't know enough or are unable or unwilling to govern their own lives.  So, people with these convictions have to build stronger and stronger guardrails and re-route the roads to protect people from themselves. 

This is legitimate when it comes to raising our kids.  Kids don't know what's best for them, so the parents have to build all kinds of guardrails and re-route their kids all the time, until they get to a point where they can make wise decisions on the road.  But to say that I need to guard and re-route my own children is a very different thing than saying I need to guard and re-route other parents.

So that is one reason why I think a resolution to "encourage" parents to pull their kids out of public schools is unnecessary at best and harmful at worst.  Such a resolution, though only meant to encourage, will all too easily take on the force of law.  It will unnecessarily create a situation of assumed negligence on the part of those who don't heed the encouragement.  And it comes perilously close to binding the conscience with something that is "beside" the Word of God.

 

Comments

[The Dane]

Yes, I was concerned when I saw that the overture was even brought to GA. The issue is hotly polarizing as it is - and any official "encouragement" would be taken as far more than mere encouragement. In effect, in many congregations (and not the least of which my own - as this has been an issue in the past), those who choose for any reason to continue schooling their children publicly would be taken as second-class citizens in the Presbyterian church, people who obviously don't care about their children's welfare. In the end, I'm very greatful that the PCA decided to continue allowing such decisions to be made according to the conscience of the Christian parent - last thing we need is the feeling of a new law upon our head.

[Elaine Nolen]

Hi David,

Thanks for your clear description of the issue and your well thought out stand. As parents of two high schoolers in Annapolis Area Christian School, this is an issue dear to my husband's and my hearts. Our children's public elementary school did a fine job. However, in middle school things changed.

We had three reasons for pulling our son out of public school after 7th grade and putting him in a Christian school:
1. His personal safety - the public school did not provide safety or strategies for dealing with threats from other students. Fights were not arbitrated fairly.
2. Academics - not much was taught. For an entire academic year, he finished his homework on the 15 minute bus ride home.
3. His happiness - he was very unhappy, quit talking to family and friends, and had few interests.

For financial reasons, we originally planned to put him back in public school in 9th or 10th grade. However, after only two weeks in Christian School, our son was noticably changed. He became happy, he worked hard and was pleased with his school work, and he made lots of new friends. What a blessing! He was won over by the respect and friendliness of the principal, teachers and students. He benefitted from the clearly communicated and fairly administered rules. The smaller class sizes allowed order where he was accustomed to chaos. He discovered that it's ok to be smart and work hard. He was in a safe place.

He is still in that good place and his sister joined him when she began 8th grade last year. My husband and I jokingly say we will never retire because all our money goes to education, but what better investment! God has provided in a miraculous way and we trust Him to meet our needs.

Although we have made the decision that both of our children will graduate from a Christian high school, I am very glad that my husband and I came to that conclusion ourselves and that our denomination did not give direction. We prayed and God gave us direction. He will give direction to all who ask.

[The Dane]

Yes, I think it's also important to note that different setting work better or worse for different children. I know people for whom public school was quite injurious, for whom the only answer was home schooling. For myself though, public schooling was the best answer and I am greatful for the experience. I think part of the problem with the overture is that it made a blanket statement about something that should not be blanketed.

[Linda from Whittier, California]

I can't figure out exactly why there is something faintly distasteful about your post. Maybe it is the fact that is sort of assumes innate stupidity or mind numb robotness. We can't encourage people to do something, because in "might" encourage others to be stupid and overbearing? What about encouraging people send their kids to christian school, because more than likely, it is the right thing to do? The church is there to offer guidance, not to be constantly terrified, that "someone" "somewhere" could "possibly" misuse that encouragement. The Bible does address this issue, because it was understood that the church was there for education and knowledge about God and his creation. Remember "Train up a child in the way he should go"? All through the Bible we are admonished to teach and to train and model for our children and others. If you have to hand part of this awesome responsibility to some one it is good to make sure that, that someone at least agrees with your own life philosphy. So what if it "becomes legalism". The law is there to show us our own utter lack of Holiness and complete and full inability to ever live up to the righteousness of GOD. The Law is a model, a goal, a measure by which we need to compare ourselves constantly to see how we can improve. Without the Law grace would not exsist! We would not even recognize our need for grace. We need to STOP acting like the Law is something bad. I know, I know, obeying the Law for its own sake us meaningless. I just think we need to realize that The Law has it purpose and we don't have to panic everytime somthing might be construed as legalistic.

[Linda from Whittier, California]

Another point I wish to make. Every time I have ever heard or read a reference to a teacher in the Bible it was a religious teacher, either jewish or other religious teachers. I guess you could say that the Bible doesn't say "Send your child to Religious School", But to say is extra biblical, is a bridge too far. I am not PCA so I guess that I should not comment. I figure you can tell that didn't stop me. I would assume that Liberty of Conscience should always be taken with a large dose of feverent study of the Law of the Old and New Testament teaching.

[Jeremy Pierce]

It's good that you cited Romans 14, but I think it applies to one thing further. The person of weak faith is the one adding requirements, so the people supporting this resolution are the ones of weak faith.

Pulling your kids out of the school may be somewhere between the guardrail and the road five miles away. A resolution like this is building the road five miles away and saying it's a sin to drive on the old road (not just that it's a sin to go into the lake).

Linda, here's a clear argument for why this is extrabiblical. Where in the Bible does it say that someone whose kids go to public school but are trained in godliness by their parents were not trained in godliness? Where does it say that training a child to approach their public school education from the perspective of starting with the fear of the Lord does not count as training a child starting from the fear of the Lord? The idea that a parent is unable to teach righteousness and biblical truth to a child going to public school is not just way beyond the scriptures but completely self-contradictory, but that's what's required if you say that a parent is failing in any biblical command by sending kids to public schools. That's why it's extra-biblical.

[Eric]

I was thinking some about the clause saying that Public Schools are neutral. It didn't really make sense to me, though. As my Dungeons and Dragons friends and I know, there is no such thing as true neutral. Even the gear for your car isn’t neutral, it sides with gravity. (Then again everybody’s on gravity’s side.)

[Mwalimu Daudi]

Pastor Wayne:

My wife and I are expecting our first child in December, so the issue of education of children is important to us. Right now I would have to agree with you on this matter. While individual situations are different and there is no "one size fits all" rule when it comes to our children, I don't see any compelling reason (so far) to advocate that Christians remove their children from public schools. I find much to fault in the public school system (especially concerning academics, safety and discipline), but Christianity does not top that list. For the record I am a teacher in a private Christian school.

However, this situation may change. The false gods of modern society are ravenous and demanding of worship. Rabid secularists could force me to change my opinion on this issue. At any rate, I will try to keep an open mind.

Please keep up your good work Pastor Wayne!

[David Wayne]

Jeremy - thanks for bringing out the fuller implications of Romans 14, I agree.

Eric - when they are talking about neutrality they are using the word in a technical theological sense to describe one's faith commitments. What they mean is that the Bible says that you are either for or against Jesus. Your presuppositions, either for or against Jesus, cloud all of your learning. The advocates of the resolution we are talking about here say that the public schools claim that they are neutral when it comes to learning and when it comes to God. There is no such thing as a "neutral" worldview, your worldview is either Christian or atheistic, and those who claim to be neutral are only kidding themselves. This is something that comes up in a lot of apologetic debates.

[Brian]

I am not PCA either but I can say with resounding confidence, if you are a Christian, you should seriously consider pulling your children out of a godless public school system and either homeschooling or putting them in a school with a Biblical basis.

If you think teaching can be "neutral", you are seriously mistaken. The school system is either for Christ or against Him. It isn't too hard to find out where they stand either.

The only reason anyone should need to send their children to a Christ based teaching facility (or homeschooling them) is obedience to their Lord and love for their children.

AMDG

[Brady Stump]

Dear David @ http://www.jollyblogger.com,

I found your site on the blogs4God Christian web page and wanted to introduce you to Oaktree.org (www.oaktree.org / Your Online Hope Exchange.) Sorry I'm posting this here, but I could not find your email address. Myself and a few other dedicated Christian web designers in South Carolina put together a site that simply connects those who need Hope in their lives with Christians willing to provide that Hope in the form of prayers, encouragement and financial help. The fulfilled needs are sent directly to the person that makes the request.

Through the free flowing online exchange of prayers, encouragement and financial help, Oaktree.org users give & receive Hope to & from each other! The technology is unique and the experience, we believe, is unforgettable. (Check out the Thank You page on the site for those that have already been touched by the site.)

www.oaktree.org has been live a little over 90 days and the membership, as well as hits and page views, have grown at a solid pace weekly. We are asking people for their feedback on the site and for any suggestions you may have on how to promote the site. Please email me ([email protected]) any ideas or promotional suggestions you might have. Thanks in advance for any feedback & keep up your dynamic ministry!

On point,

Brady Stump

Founder

www.oaktree.org

PS If you would be interested in trading links, we would definitely be happy to participate!

[bruce]

I remember when I first moved to SC - and I toured a town to learn of it's history. Seems it was founded by a pastor that moved his entire congregation there from PA! People would actually make life decisions based on 'encouragement' from a pastor. I guess times have changed. It seems today we find it distasteful to have any pastoral or church 'encouragement' in our lives, much less to be under their authority. Then we wonder why the church is so irrelevant in today's culture.

[Tex]

> It seems today we find it distasteful to have any pastoral or church 'encouragement' in our lives, much less to be under their authority. Then we wonder why the church is so irrelevant in today's culture.

Historically, the biggest reason much of the church is irrelevant today is because of the Prohibition debacle. The American church never regained her credibility after that.

When you take matters that are secondary (and tertiary, etc.) and promote them to matters of faith and marks of belief, as this resolution does, the end effect is that things which are truly important become cheapened.

If you don't like public schools, that's your perogative, but don't attempt to force it upon everyone else.

By the way, that town that you described that moved to South Carolina sounds more like a dictatorship than a church.

[Dignan]

Bruce,
You are missing the point. I imagine that most of us who oppose this overture at the GA would agree that there is a huge place for pastoral and church encouragement. I don't find it distasteful in any way to be under the authority of my pastor. That being said, we must go to scripture to see what areas of life that we need encouragement in and what areas that we have to rely on our conscience and God's guidance. Should my pastor provide me encouragement as to what types of food I eat? Or the brands of clothes I buy? I think not.

I am no fan of public schools myself, mostly because of the poor academics. But I respect those who do make that tough decision. There just isn't a clear cut right and wrong on this issue.

Peace,
Dignan

[bruce]

Dignan,

Maybe I have missed the point in that I'm not PCA, nor am I in a congregation or denomination that votes on anything. However, I think you missed my point, which is not about educational decisions but about being under authority.

Being under authority does not mean you pick which issues are under authority and which are not. (One classic example would be a Roman Catholic that uses birth control because they don't agree with that part). Your opinion may be that where you educate your children is no more important than what brand of clothes you wear. I think differently, but you don't need to consider my opinion. However, if your church/pastor thinks it is a primary spiritual issue, and you consider them an authority over you established by God, then you need to pay attention.

Maybe in the voting church, you vote on whether an issue is primary or not, and that is what is going on here (at least in part). It's not in the pastor's hands, it's in the hands of the voters. You believe it is not a church matter, the authors of the resolution believe it is. So you discussed it, then voted. The majority determined it is not a church matter. That the end of it. (Let me know if I've missed something - sincerely).

However, imho, that's the dangerous part. It's too easy just to vote that everything is not a chuch matter. When everything is classified as secular, the secular world will determine the direction of the culture, and the church no longer has any influence. That's where we are right now. We (as a culture) like to crowd God into a small corner of our lives. However, God wants to be the Lord or our lives, every aspect.

[The Dane]

Wow, since when is the church irrelevant? I'm a GenXer (I s'pose) and I have never found church to be anything but relevant. Maybe Southern California is just lucky - though I suspect that people are more likely not understanding relevance.

[Brian]

Do people think that educating their children is not a Biblical matter?

I don't think people that are proponents of public school would like what they see if they went to the Scripture for answers. It is similar to the subject of discipline and many Christians just don't want to hear what the Word of God has to say about it.

[Linda from Whittier, California]

Jeremy:
I don't think you brought anything "fuller" to this discussion. You just threw up a strawman then knocked him down. How can you possible train up your children in Godliness, when MOST of their waking hours are spent with Godless People? Seems counter-productive to me. I don't mean they are bad or evil just that the State MANDATES that they be Godless. I am not suggesting that the Church make a law that says you have to send your kids to Christian Scool. For me, (a divorced mother in the early 1970's) it was intuitive. When parents come to the church for guidance, the church should encourage them to send their kids to Christian School. I can't get past the notion that you think most people can really train up their children the way they should go when they basically are giving up the greatest part of their childrens day to those who, with a few exceptions, try to pull the children into the "If it feels Good do it" meme. Of course, your example is crazy, they didn't even know what a public school was in Bible days. I agree, you can train your children to be Godly, and approach public school with fear of God and so on. I am saying, when the church is approached for guidance by those wishing to do the right thing the church should be ready to encourage them to keep their kids as protected as they can (hopefully in Christian School) while they learn these important values. Can you honestly say that you can teach a five year old, the nuances of casual references to any subject. I don't think so? I recently heard a 6 year make a sexual reference (very casualy)and completely out of context to what she was saying. I don't know how it is where you live, but here in California, Public schools are trying to indoctrinate primary graders with humanistism, sexuality and earth worship(Mother Gia etc). You can Pontificate all you wish, but simple logic tells you that the more time you allow those who do not share your values to teach your children, the harder and more difficult it will be (for you)to teach your own values. Doesn't mean you can't do it, just means that an already difficult and sacred job, is even more difficult.

Brian,
Yes, some people are actually saying that teaching your children is "extra (or outside of) Biblical" teaching. Amazing logic isn't it! That the busiest hours of the day (eating, doing homework, getting ready for bed and an hour or two once a week or so) is ample time to teach Bible truths and knowledge.

[Linda from Whittier, California]

Tex
you said:
"When you take matters that are secondary (and tertiary, etc.) and promote them to matters of faith and marks of belief, as this resolution does, the end effect is that things which are truly important become cheapened."

TEACHING OUR CHILDREN IS SECONDARY AND NOT IMPORTANT??? I am not PCA. Can anyone here tell me that teaching and training our children is sort of a sideline for Christian Parents. WOW, I can't get my arms around that one.

[Jeffrey Moss]

(First, a little about me: I'm studying in seminary at Greyfriars Hall in Moscow, Idaho, and am a member of a Reformed church there [Christ Church, CREC]. My parents attend a PCA church in Pennsylvania, and I heard about this blog through them.)

With all due respect to Pastor Wayne's careful and sincere statements, and after having read the previous comments on this post, I really think the main issue here is not legalism or Romans 14--it's something else entirely. I don't believe that advising parents to take their children out of government schools is legalistic. Would it be considered legalism if Christian pastors in Saudi Arabia told church members not to put their children into government-sponsored schools of Islam? Obviously parents have a duty to protect their children from indoctrination in anti-Christian values, and rather to "bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). In this passage and others like it, God requires Christian parents to give their children a Christian education.

Many American Christians don't recognize that American public schools, as a system, are aggressively teaching religious secularism and functional atheism. Maybe they remember a time when the public schools used to pay lip service to Christianity. Yet Horace Mann, John Dewey (a signer and co-author of the Humanist Manifesto), and others who were instrumental in establishing the American government school system in the 19th and early 20th centuries, were strongly against the Christian Church. They believed that the public schools would help steer a historically Christian America toward becoming a more secular humanistic society.

So is there really a parallel between, on the one hand, those whose faith was weak and who therefore avoided "unclean" meat and still observed Jewish holidays (Romans 14), and on the other, those who send their children to be educated in a system bound to pay homage to idols of secularism, evolutionism, amorality, and pluralism? Did Ezra or Nehemiah merely "receive" and "bear with" Jews who broke God's law by marrying ungodly, idolatrous wives? Did they tolerate these men's rebellion against God, in fathering and raising children who worshiped the idols of Canaan, as merely a "weakness of faith" or a "disputable matter"? Obviously not! Rather, they called these erring covenant members to repent, and to change their family practices in order to come into conformity with the commands of God. Pastors of today are responsible to do the same.

[Dory]

I've got real mixed feelings on this one. I'll state first that I am totally on board with the notion that parents are bound to provide a thoroughly Christian education for their children. I also believe there is no such thing as the religious neutrality that the public schools claim. I believe they are anti-Christian plain and simple. Education is the parents' responsibility, however, and not the Church's, and it is in the area of spheres of authority that I find my hesitation to support a motion such as this one.

I think the role of the church in this area is to educate the parents on what the Scriptures require, to support parents in their God-given duties, and in cases of special needs, to provide through the Church's resources.

I believe that parents who understand well what the Scriptures require of them in the education of their children will look at the public schools and find them inadequate at best, and harmful at worst, toward those ends. But do we need a statement of the GA of the PCA to reach that conclusion for them? Or do we, rather, need to encourage the congregations and pastors of the PCA to teach about Christian education and provide the support parents need to accomplish it?

The truth is that the PCA, as well as many other Reformed, Evangelical or Protestant denominations have done far too little to support Christian education. Compare this to the Roman Catholic church, which operates a school providing an affordable classical education in nearly every community in America. I know, I know, they have more members and more money than we do, but any congregation has enough people to at least provide some support for homeschoolers or a co-op group.

Then there is the whole issue of special needs. What about single parents or kids that need specialized help with learning disabilities or immigrant parents who cannot teach their children in English? What has the church provided for them?

What I am saying here is that to pass some resolution that makes parents feel guilty for their choices, while not providing help to them to do better is discouragement, rather than the encouragement it is meant to be. If we in the PCA are really dedicated to educate our covenant children outside of the public schools (and I hope we are), let's do the hard work of providing real assistance and choices to parents. Let's find room in our church budgets to provide homeschool resources, to start schools, and to provide scholarships. Let's provide resources for parents of disabled or learning-challenged kids. Let's help parents who are not proficient in English, or parents who are themselves too sick or disabled to homeschool. Let's put our resources where we say our priorities are.

Until we do that, it seems premature to chastise parents for not taking advantage of educational choices which, for many of them, do not exist.

[Terry]

I think the lack of imagination that form the boundaries of the debate is the problem. Check out my own posting on this topic below.

http://pruittcommunications.blogspot.com/2005/06/education-deregulate-it.html

[The Dane]

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Linda from Whittier for properly denigrating my parents while proving my fears justified. She does not believe it possible to adequately raise one's children in the nurture and admonition of the faith if they attend a public school (a place we all agree has, for the most part, extra- or anti-Christian agendas). As she does not believe this possible, she must believe that no parents who have raised kids while schooling them publicly can have possibly trained them up in the ways of godliness. Therefore, according to her, my parents were bad parents and did not raise me well in the faith.

This, of course, is a ridiculous supposition - neither based in experience or reality; for despite her beliefs, my parents, though schooling me in the public system, did very well to nurture me in my faith. They were good parents and took the time to educate me in the truth of Scripture. By their admonition and good parenting, I successfully graduated high school strong, pure, and with my faith intact. Linda's supposition is more of an insult than I am willing to hear slandered against my parents. They were good. They were godly. They were everything I could hope for in parents. And to read Linda tarnish their reputation with gross generalities turns my stomach.

And therefore proves my fears with regards to the overture - someone like this is the last person who needs justification for her extremism. If we declare that it is bad parenting to have a child in public schooling (which would be the lay-opinion of such "encouragements"), we validate such libelous claims as Linda's. And that right there gives me the willies.

[Molly]

A friend just told me that the Southern Baptist Convention recently had a similar resolution proposed, and they were able to turn a somewhat harshly-worded resolution into one that sounded positive and non-divisive.

I don't claim to be very well-informed about the resolutions at either the PCA or the SBC assemblies, but I did like how the Baptists concluded the matter: http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc05/resolutions/sbcresolution.asp?ID=2

[Harris]

May I suggest that virtually all debates about "Christian" v. "common" schools has to do with a view of the church. The difficulty with the PCA advice or with a somewhat similar proposal before the CRC (my denom), is that we define Christian obedience solely in terms of our selves, our needs (of course, we say "our children..." ). The common/public schools are filled with baptized children, it's just that they are theologically at a distance from us, or worse, the children of mainliners. In withdrawing for the sake of our own,we make a case of "our church" v. "their" church. They don't get the protection we afford ourselves; and too often the reason is that they are of the wrong class and often the wrong color. Moreover it is not at all clear that our withdrawal helps these other baptized children at all, but rather exposes them to greater risk.

If we care, we are engaged. If we have the means to make the schools healthier by our presence (and believe me, we do), then to leave is only to settle for our limited well-being at the expense of the bigger church.

All this is not a carte blanche for the public schools, but rather a recognition that education is never just about us and our kids. The cause for educational justice will take many forms, and our public schools can be part of that.