# Radical home-schooling exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:6-9



## Reformed Covenanter

> And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deuteronomy 6:6-9



In recent years this passage has been cited in an attempt to prove that a) home-schooling is the best or only way to educate children; b) the state cannot financially maintain education, as this duty has been given to the "sphere" of the nuclear family.

What are the main problems with such exegesis? I can think of several problems, the primary objection being that it appears to be an ideological assumption read into the text, rather than a teaching derived from a fair analysis of the passage.

I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?


----------



## pilgrimmum

Good question Reformed Covenanter. As a mother of 9 children who has home schooled all of them for various periods for 17 yrs I am a little qualified to answer that I feel. More than likely it is frustrated Christian parents in this day and age who are using this scripture to support their endeavours to bring their children up in the Lords way I would say. Many parents with large families cannot afford Christian school fees and so see homeschooling as a viable Christian schooling option. Also many parents are not very happy with the curriculums and tone of Christian schools these days as well. The homeschooling community provides another need as well and that is fellowship , support and friendship for families training up their children in the Lord which they are often not getting much of from the church apart from "youth" groups some of which are just worldly social clubs.


----------



## Pergamum

It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.



Perg, although I am not against home-education _per se_, the above exegesis is "Radical" from the point of view of historic Reformed orthodoxy. The Reformed confessions uniformly recognise the validity of schools outside the home, while at the same time the Reformed have recognised that parents are primarily responsible for ensuring that their children are given a godly upbringing. Is this a contradiction? I do not think so, because it is simply a _non-sequitur_ to assume that because parents are responsible for ensuring their offspring are brought up in the fear of God that therefore they need to do all the academic education themselves. Indeed, until relatively recently it would have been virtually impossible for many middle-class people to home-school and modern home-schooling did not even exist when Deuteronomy 6 was written. Moreover, the assumption that Deuteronomy 6 applies to nuclear parents and no-one else is just that - an assumption, which appears to me to reflect the presuppositions derived from Kuyperianism. This scriptural injunction was given to the nation of Israel, not just to nuclear families alone. If a command is given to a nation (collectively), then surely a nation has the collective responsibility to see that this commandment is obeyed.

That said, I am not against home-schooling and respect those who think it is the most prudent model of education to employ in our current circumstances. What I am opposed to is people reading things into scripture in order to justify this preference, and then turning it into a rigid dogma when it has no biblical or confessional warrant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

pilgrimmum said:


> Good question Reformed Covenanter. As a mother of 9 children who has home schooled all of them for various periods for 17 yrs I am a little qualified to answer that I feel. More than likely it is frustrated Christian parents in this day and age who are using this scripture to support their endeavours to bring their children up in the Lords way I would say. Many parents with large families cannot afford Christian school fees and so see homeschooling as a viable Christian schooling option. Also many parents are not very happy with the curriculums and tone of Christian schools these days as well. The homeschooling community provides another need as well and that is fellowship , support and friendship for families training up their children in the Lord which they are often not getting much of from the church apart from "youth" groups some of which are just worldly social clubs.



Thank you for your reply, Mrs pilgrimmum. Your comment reflects what I have been thinking as well in relation to this issue: that the above exegesis tells us a lot more about our current circumstances than it does about the actual meaning of the text in question.

It is also interesting how the justification for home-schooling has developed. When I first heard about people home-schooling, it was in order to shield their children from ungodly influences (an entirely legitimate desire). Nowadays, however, it appears that home-schooling is being increasingly advocated on the basis that it is _the_ Christian way to educate children. Perhaps the zeal of people rightly wanting to protect their children from unChristian influences has carried them too far, and they have regretfully overstated the case in order to defend their current practice.


----------



## Logan

I wonder if it really is a reading into Scripture. As a Reformed, Christian parent who looks around and sees the state of the public schools, and who recognizes that he is "primarily responsible for ensuring that their children are given a godly upbringing", wouldn't a natural conclusion be that one of the only _viable_ choices is homeschooling, or Christian schools?

It may be different in other areas (these are my views and mine alone), but in my area I see the godlessness of the public educational system and believe that part of my responsibility in bringing up my children is to keep them out of it.

I understand your point if we are looking at a "neutral" society and people are pointing to this passage to say everyone should move toward homeschooling, but I think the interpretation comes from looking at what is an incredibly ungodly society and then asking, from this verse, what are my options?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Logan, I detect that you are advocating home-schooling as the only viable choice in your current circumstances. If that is your view, then I have no objection to it. That view may even be a valid deduction from the passage cited above. My point, however, is that you cannot impose current circumstances upon the biblical text in order to formulate a theory that all schools outside the home are wrong in all ages and places regardless of the circumstances. Would anyone here seriously argue that it was a sin to send children to public schools in Calvin's Geneva or Reformation Scotland? What about the multitudes of people throughout history who had neither the time, money, nor academic ability to home-school? Were these people sinning by sending their children to Christian public schools?


----------



## sevenzedek

Perhaps the passage is adequate to support home-schooling; but not sufficient to support it to the exclusion of other forms of Christian education. Besides, who needs a Bible verse to support the idea that it is wrong for Christian parents to allow their children to be taught ideas that support damned lifestyles and ideologies? Can you imagine David sending his children to a Philistine public school for their instruction if there ever was such? The adult people of Israel; let alone their children, had negative consequences for their saturation into Babylonian society. The result was the Talmud. Oh, yes. There are such things as Darwinian-evolutionary Christians and those churches that support gay marriage. Where did they get such blasphemous ideas to begin with? Faithful Bible teaching or the world and its propagating teachers?


----------



## Logan

You "have objection to it" or did you mean you "have no objection to it"?

I think you're saying much the same thing I just said. In no way am I saying that schools outside the home are wrong in all ages and places, but my exegesis of the text leads me to believe my responsibility in my age and place require something other than the public school system.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Logan said:


> You "have objection to it" or did you mean you "have no objection to it"?
> 
> I think you're saying much the same thing I just said. In no way am I saying that schools outside the home are wrong in all ages and places, but my exegesis of the text leads me to believe my responsibility in my age and place require something other than the public school system.



Thanks for spotting the typo, Logan. Don't ever let anyone tell you words do not matter. 

Yes, I think that sounds like a reasonable enough application of the text in your current circumstances.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

sevenzedek said:


> Perhaps the passage is adequate to support home-schooling; but not sufficient to support it to the exclusion of other forms of Christian education.



Yes, that is why I used the modifier "Radical" before home-schooling. Most home-schoolers I know recognise the validity of other forms of Christian education, but some extremists have run with this text in order to justify making their preference an absolute dogma.


----------



## sevenzedek

Reformed Covenanter said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the passage is adequate to support home-schooling; but not sufficient to support it to the exclusion of other forms of Christian education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is why I used the modifier "Radical" before home-schooling. Most home-schoolers I know recognise the validity of other forms of Christian education, but some extremists have run with this text in order to justify making their preference an absolute dogma.
Click to expand...


That is a good modifier, my friend.


----------



## Jack K

I do what the Deuteronomy passage speaks of with my kids. I also send my kids to school (and I am involved with that schooling). The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Tim

> And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deuteronomy 6:6-9



It seems to me that the interpretation and application of this passage depends on:

1) the extent of these commanded _words_ - that is, does this include all instruction given to a child, no matter what kind?

2) what it means to _teach_;

3) the definition of _child_ - What would have been the OT definition of a child? I suspect that it would have been a lot younger than 17-19! If a person is no longer a child, then they may receive instruction outside the home. Most homeschoolers, even the so-called radical ones, make the division after "high school" age, but this could be incorrect, depending on the understanding of when adulthood occurs.

4) understanding of the "all the time" aspect - if it must be done all the time, there is no place for any other kinds of instruction.


----------



## Tim

Jack K said:


> I do what the Deuteronomy passage speaks of with my kids. I also send my kids to school (and I am involved with that schooling). The two are not mutually exclusive.



Can you show why you believe they aren't mutually exclusive, in light of my points #1 and #4 above. I am not taking any position here; just asking the question.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Daniel:

Good post, brother, and I believe that you are spot-on: an implication of the passage might support homeschooling but the passage in no way mandates it.

Tim, in answer to your question--any parent, whether they homeschool or send their children to school, has the opportunity to do what the verses require. All of us fail at it: none of us, the best of us (whoever that is) do it as we ought or want to. But all parents have the occasion to sit with their children, to walk with them, to rise up and lie down with them--and in all these facets of life to teach them the law of the Lord, the ways of the Lord, the things of the Lord. This is not a commandment to teach them everything that they might learn as if I must teach them piano, art, German, etc. As Jack said, "the two are not mutually exclusive."

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Hemustincrease

Sending children as young as 4 years old into the hands of the pagan state to have their minds and hearts shaped by a curriculum which opposes truth and Christ is extremely radical! Actually, I could stop at “sending children as young as four into the hands of the pagan state.........” is extremely radical. 

Home schooling, whether backed by ‘extremists’ or not is not (when we look at history overall) even remotely radical.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> while we stay uninvolved



So you agree that government school is an appropriate option so long as parents stay involved?


----------



## Jack K

Tim said:


> 1) the extent of these commanded words - that is, does this include all instruction given to a child, no matter what kind?



It would seem not to. Moses specifies the things he has taught the people. The words Moses commanded and is referring to did not cover everything a child must learn, only many spiritual things. We have no record that Moses taught, say, cooking skills or geometry. These are a necessary part of a child's education if the people are to eat or build a Tabernacle, but not part of what Moses has in mind here.




Tim said:


> 4) understanding of the "all the time" aspect - if it must be done all the time, there is no place for any other kinds of instruction.



Common sense would suggest the meaning here is closer to "regularly, as you go about your business" rather than "all the time without stopping for anything."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> Sending children as young as 4 years old into the hands of the pagan state to have their minds and hearts shaped by a curriculum which opposes truth and Christ is extremely radical! Actually, I could stop at “sending children as young as four into the hands of the pagan state.........” is extremely radical.



Hi Jo,

I have pointed out that home-schooling is fine if someone wants to guard their children from harmful influences; that, however, is a different thing from saying that home-schooling is the only valid way to educate children in all circumstances. As it happens, I would probably home-school partly in order to protect children from the influence of Federal Visionism, Reconstructionism, Kuyperianism, Voluntaryism, Libertarianism, and other unconfessional teachings that are often disseminated in supposedly Reformed Christian schools. 



Hemustincrease said:


> Home schooling, whether backed by ‘extremists’ or not is not (when we look at history overall) even remotely radical.



I realise that you are writing from a Baptist/Voluntaryist background, so I cannot speak for the historical practice in your tradition. In the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, however, it was historically confessed that their should be common schools. These schools were to be Christian, often supervised by the church, and financially maintained by the state. Although home-schooling was not necessarily precluded, the ideal of the Scottish Reformation was to have a school in every parish.

For some pointers as to the historic Reformed position on education, please feel free to check out these extracts from earlier Reformed writings: Christian Education | Reformed Covenanter

Kind regards,

Daniel

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I realise that you are writing from a Baptist/Voluntaryist background, so I cannot speak for the historical practice in your tradition. In the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, however, it was historically confessed that their should be common schools. These schools were to be Christian, often supervised by the church, and financially maintained by the state. Although home-schooling was not necessarily precluded, the ideal of the Scottish Reformation was to have a school in every parish.



Hello Daniel. Yes, I am aware of the history of education, however, my point was that when we look back over the entire 2000 years since Christ, we will find that home education has rarely been considered ‘radical’. 

I am not personally opposed to (and I see no opposition to it in Scripture) a genuine Christian school, where the Word of God is revered and the environment maintained as one which positively disciples children in the Christian faith, but this is not to be found anywhere in the UK today (that I am aware of). As such, it is not a surprise that those who home educate often consider their choice to do so, as the only obedient one open to them. 

If we take the full 2000 years of Christendom into consideration, we would be asking the question “how did the church ever reach a point where state schooling of an openly humanistic nature was considered the unquestioned normal for the children of believers?”

The ‘home education is the only obedient form of education’ view, sometimes heard today, is a view which needs to be understood in the light of the generation we now live in, rather than in _certain times past _when ‘school’ was synonymous with the fear of the Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, although I am not against home-education _per se_, the above exegesis is "Radical" from the point of view of historic Reformed orthodoxy. The Reformed confessions uniformly recognise the validity of schools outside the home, while at the same time the Reformed have recognised that parents are primarily responsible for ensuring that their children are given a godly upbringing.
Click to expand...


Martin Bucer was very pro-state funding on issues like this.


----------



## RamistThomist

Just a thought:

I don't have my _Biblia Hebraica_ with me, but if Moses is speaking to the plural "you," then the emphasis would be off of home-school only, since he isn't speaking to dads at a Vision Forum Conference (I say this as someone who plans on homeschooling). Such an emphasis would allow for a communal education.


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?



I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.

Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.

Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> while we stay uninvolved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that government school is an appropriate option so long as parents stay involved?
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree that tutors and third parties can be used if the parents can stay involved and if the principles taught at home are not contradicted when away from home. 

I think Deut. 6 demands that we get highly involved. I don't think this always demands home-schooling. And there are benefits to grouping kids together and pooling knowledge for subjects such as advanced math as an aid to their parents.

Currently in the USA, I would have a hard time sending my kids to public school. Furthermore, the US public schools don't seem to "serve" parents anymore but seem to have taken the lead role as masters over the children, telling the parents what to do instead of the other way around.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.
> 
> Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.
> 
> Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.
Click to expand...


What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home. I am possibly mistaken in this assertion, but is R. C. Sproul JR's _When You Rise Up_ (2004) the only book-length defence of this view-point or is their other literature which advocates this principle prior to the publication of this work?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> Hello Daniel. Yes, I am aware of the history of education, however, my point was that when we look back over the entire 2000 years since Christ, we will find that home education has rarely been considered ‘radical’.



I do not consider home education in and of itself to be a radical aberration. I do, however, consider exclusive home-schooling being advocated as a universal principle to be a novel theory from a confessional Reformed point of view. My problem with the extremist home-schoolers is not that they advocate home-schooling as the best option for the present, but that the condemn all common schools (or even private Christian schools) in the abstract. Indeed, I have even heard some of them assert that common schools in Calvin's Geneva and Knox's Scotland were wrong and sinful. This view needs to be resisted as it is only bringing reproach on moderate people who have to home-school as it is the only option open to them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.
> 
> Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.
> 
> Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home. I am possibly mistaken in this assertion, but is R. C. Sproul JR's _When You Rise Up_ (2004) the only book-length defence of this view-point or is their other literature which advocates this principle prior to the publication of this work?
Click to expand...


There were a number of home-school only books before then, but RCjr's was the most popular (and probably the most cogent), if only because of his dad's name. Whereas the others were written by people who were likely evading the IRS (I say this from attending a Rushdoony conference and those two issues came up).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Cameronian said:


> There were a number of home-school only books before then, but RCjr's was the most popular (and probably the most cogent), if only because of his dad's name. Whereas the others were written by people who were likely evading the IRS (I say this from attending a Rushdoony conference and those two issues came up).



Do you have a rough idea of when these were published? I guess RC Jr's was the only one published by a mainstream Reformed publisher. And while we are on this subject, does anyone know of a scholarly response to that book?


----------



## timmopussycat

Pergamum said:


> It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.



It is noteworthy that God's Old Covenant people did "farm out the education and moral instruction" of their children to some extent as Edersheim has shown in his_ The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah _pp. 230-33.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timmopussycat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is noteworthy that God's Old Covenant people did "farm out the education and moral instruction" of their children to some extent as Edersheim has shown in his_ The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah _pp. 230-33.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am also not sure about this whole notion of parents being "involved" in education to the extent that modern home-schoolers often want to take it. Obviously, they should protect children from harmful influences, but what happens if children are being taught medieval Latin and the parents do not know medieval Latin? How are they supposed to be "involved" in such teaching when they know nothing about the subject? If involvement means making sure the children obey their teachers and do their homework, then that sounds okay. But if "involved" means parents micro-managing the teaching of a subject they know nothing about, then surely such involvement is contrary to common sense.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

One other thing: on a number of occasions I have pointed out to exclusive home-schoolers that if their exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:6-9 is correct, then they cannot employ home-schooling text-books written by people other than the children's parents. Because if "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house" refers to instruction by nuclear parents _alone_, to the exclusion of all non-parental teachers, then how can you use someone else's words written in a book to teach your children. Whenever I have put this to them, they have just evaded the point and said I was misrepresenting them, but I really do not see any way round this if you take their theory of parental instruction to its logical conclusion.


----------



## TylerRay

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home.



This view is sometimes espoused by Reconstructionists; but I imagine the Vision-Forum-Family-Intigrationist-etc. folks were big in spreading it as well. Also, these groups have a lot in common (and there are a lot of folks who could be described as both).

I plan to home school my children, but I don't think that it is a divinely sanctioned form of education. I do believe the passage in question describes parents' duties toward their children in training them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but that doesn't require home schooling.


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home. I am possibly mistaken in this assertion, but is R. C. Sproul JR's _When You Rise Up_ (2004) the only book-length defence of this view-point or is their other literature which advocates this principle prior to the publication of this work?



Australian homeschooling would likely have been less organised than the US movement, but we heard the text used ideologically in the early '90s when we started homeschooling our children. As we saw the idea as another cultural imposition upon the church we deliberately kept our distance from it. Definitely by the mid '90s we started to come across Reconstructionist homeschoolers, and I can recall the dominion mandate being tied up with it. I have showed no interest in the literature so I couldn't say what book-length publications use the text in this way.


----------



## Herald

Alan D. Strange said:


> Daniel:
> 
> Good post, brother, and I believe that you are spot-on: an implication of _*the passage might support homeschooling but the passage in no way mandates it*_.
> 
> Tim, in answer to your question--any parent, whether they homeschool or send their children to school, has the opportunity to do what the verses require. All of us fail at it: none of us, the best of us (whoever that is) do it as we ought or want to. But all parents have the occasion to sit with their children, to walk with them, to rise up and lie down with them--and in all these facets of life to teach them the law of the Lord, the ways of the Lord, the things of the Lord. This is not a commandment to teach them everything that they might learn as if I must teach them piano, art, German, etc. As Jack said, "the two are not mutually exclusive."
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Alan,

I concur that there is no command in scripture to homeschool just as there is no command not to homeschool. 

The question of homeschooling has been posed to me by parents. While I am an advocate of homeschooling, I extend charity on the issue. However I do add this caution. Ultimately the parent is responsible for what their children are exposed to during their education. Approached logically the advantages of homeschooling become apparent. If the parent(s) decides to send their child(ren) to a state school they have to accept that fact that, no matter the level of their involvement, the state is teaching their children from other than a Christian worldview. At best it complicates the work of the parent(s).


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ndeed, I have even heard some of them assert that common schools in Calvin's Geneva and Knox's Scotland were wrong and sinful. This view needs to be resisted as it is only bringing reproach on moderate people who have to home-school as it is the only option open to them.



Yes, I would agree. Unfortunately, extreme views will always be with us to a degree and within home schooling there are not a few somewhat bizarre and almost cultish notions hanging around. Happily, whilst the internet has been a means of garnering more support than they may otherwise have done, I believe they are still very much in the minority and most home educators do themselves resist such ideas.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Australian homeschooling would likely have been less organised than the US movement, but we heard the text used ideologically in the early '90s when we started homeschooling our children. As we saw the idea as another cultural imposition upon the church we deliberately kept our distance from it. Definitely by the mid '90s we started to come across Reconstructionist homeschoolers, and I can recall the dominion mandate being tied up with it. I have showed no interest in the literature so I couldn't say what book-length publications use the text in this way.



That is very interesting; I wonder if the text was used ideologically by lay people before it was popularised in the writings of home-schooling/Reconstructionist "leaders"?


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were a number of home-school only books before then, but RCjr's was the most popular (and probably the most cogent), if only because of his dad's name. Whereas the others were written by people who were likely evading the IRS (I say this from attending a Rushdoony conference and those two issues came up).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a rough idea of when these were published? I guess RC Jr's was the only one published by a mainstream Reformed publisher. And while we are on this subject, does anyone know of a scholarly response to that book?
Click to expand...


Early 2000s. The Exodus Mandate was behind a few of them. There aren't any scholarly responses to RCjr's book likely because it wasn't published by a scholarly publisher.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This view is sometimes espoused by Reconstructionists; but I imagine the Vision-Forum-Family-Intigrationist-etc. folks were big in spreading it as well. Also, these groups have a lot in common (and there are a lot of folks who could be described as both).
> 
> I plan to home school my children, but I don't think that it is a divinely sanctioned form of education. I do believe the passage in question describes parents' duties toward their children in training them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but that doesn't require home schooling.
Click to expand...


At the end of his career RJR's big thing was "Christian Education" (he talked more favorably and more often of that than he did the Church) in the specifically Christian school. I know the older-line FV guys who are still in direct contact with James Jordan have had a trajectory on this: it started out as homeschooling in the 80s, then to Christian schools, now to _Classically_ Christian models (Doug Wilson's model). That's a key adjective. _Classically_. This would put them wildly at odds with the Vision Forum crowd.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> Home schooling, whether backed by ‘extremists’ or not is not (when we look at history overall) even remotely radical.



At this point in their history, anything Vision Forum does will forever be radical. The recent "scandal" is only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Cameronian said:


> At this point in their history, anything Vision Forum does will forever be radical. The recent "scandal" is only the tip of the iceberg.



Home schooling is not radical. (That was my only point.) That Vision Forum advocated it has absolutely no power to render it as such. They cannot change 2000 years of history! It (home education) is normative, despite the fact that there has and likely always will be radical groups who promote it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in their history, anything Vision Forum does will forever be radical. The recent "scandal" is only the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Home schooling is not radical. (That was my only point.) That Vision Forum advocated it has absolutely no power to render it as such. They cannot change 2000 years of history! It (home education) is normative, despite the fact that there has and likely always will be radical groups who promote it.
Click to expand...


True, Vision Forum's cultishness does not negate homeschooling. I strongly dispute that homeschooling was the norm for 2,000 years. Public academies were common in the East (and not necessarily remotely Christian at that; otherwise, why would Justinian have shut many down? Though Justinian did it for his own reasons and not necessarily for dominion.). Origen studied under Ammonius Saccas alongside the non-Christian Porphory. After Origen supposedly castrated himself, he opened a public academy for Christian young ladies Lots of the Greek Patristics were hired-out tutors to wealthy families, as was John Knox. Augustine was a teacher at a school of all places (admittedly, he hated it). They were NOT homeschooling in the modern sense.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Cameronian said:


> Early 2000s. The Exodus Mandate was behind a few of them. There aren't any scholarly responses to RCjr's book likely because it wasn't published by a scholarly publisher.



Thanks. Do you know of any responses to _When you rise up_, apart from the caustic ones that you tend to find on blogs?


----------



## pilgrimmum

Some great points brought forward and discussed here. I do not see the scripture in Deut 6:6-9 as confining the education of our children to homeschooling just in case I didn't make myself clear. If there are good Christian schools offering curriculums that suit your children's career pathways and they are affordable for the familys budget I am most in favour of them. The problem with Australian Christian schools is often that at the upper levels( Yrs 10-12) they cannot offer the same courses or resources that larger state schools can and parents are then forced often to send their children to state schools even though the state school ethos directly contradicts Christian beliefs and teaching. There is a denomination here "the Free Reformed Church" in Perth ( closed communion) whose whole congregation takes responsibility for the denominations children's education at their Free Reformed School(s). This spreads the burden then over the whole congregation rather than solely on the parents shoulders. Many in the "homeschool movement" have also returned to the christian fundamental approach to family planning and contraception and therefore have large families. This also makes it difficult at times for parents with Christian school fees especially as there is usually only one wage earner being the father.The mother is bound to the home with young children ect.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early 2000s. The Exodus Mandate was behind a few of them. There aren't any scholarly responses to RCjr's book likely because it wasn't published by a scholarly publisher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Do you know of any responses to _When you rise up_, apart from the caustic ones that you tend to find on blogs?
Click to expand...


I am sure there are some; I don't know of any. For all of the ills of Doug Wilson, and I do not endorse his classical model, most contemporary thinkers outside the Reformed ghetto would more likely interact with the classical model than Sproul.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.
> 
> Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.
> 
> Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.
Click to expand...


Saved this to my "Great Quotes". So well framed!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Baroque Norseman said:


> I strongly dispute that homeschooling was the norm for 2,000 years.


Indeed, one need only read Edersheim's classic works on Jewish Social Life at the time of Christ. Schools existed at every Synagogue for elementary education with some children moving on to more in-depth study. Determining whether this was education by either the Family, the State, or the Government commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. It was not an "either-or" choice but a "both-and". I only agree with this to point out that the issues are more complex than insisting upon the idea that the way home-schoolers educate (I include my family in that lot) have some kind of corner on _THE_ historical way to educate. An interesting look at the history of America is that the first parochial schools established were by Roman Catholics because they viewed the education of the public schools as Protestant in many cities throughout the land. I would not maintain that the educational system in many cities and counties in the U.S. are remotely so anymore but it is not axiomatic that the State, Church, and Family cannot participate in the education of children in any context. I simply find myself in a country and age where the State is assuming to itself certain prerogatives that do not belong to it under God and so it does not currently function in a way that complements Church and Family but often acts against it and so I must quietly protest my educating my children in cooperation with the Church.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Baroque Norseman said:


> I strongly dispute that homeschooling was the norm for 2,000 years.



To clarify. 
In saying that home education has been normative, I did _not mean_ it has been the only means of education available. Firstly, I was speaking specifically about Christian people, not the lost. Following on from that, my point was, that home education has not, until relatively recently, been considered radical by Christian people (even when it has been entered into alongside or instead of other perfectly suitable provision.) 

Under Rome, and following the persecution from the Jews, Christians had no other option than to home educate their children. The synagogues were no longer welcoming of them and it would seem highly unlikely that Christians would have had their children educated by people who thought it entertaining to feed their brethren to beasts! (No doubt the Jews continued to use the synagogues and the Romans certainly had their own schools.) 

As Christ followers, it ought not to come as any real shock that educating our children in this world, yet not according to the worlds agenda or philosophy, will very often mean doing so in ways which run contrary to the lost around us and will mean far more personal sacrifice on our part. Thus why I find it so disheartening at times, when true followers of Christ today ask me why I have chosen this route. To me, that answer ought to be obvious to them. (Not because of some explicit command in Scripture, but because of the world we live in which has, in my opinion, made home education the only means of bringing up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.) 

Home education has been normative (overall) for believers, not because God commanded that every child of a Christian must be educated at home, but because we live in the world which Christ forewarned us about. A world which hates Him and hates those who follow Him. A world which will not long tolerate truth or the moral instruction found in Scripture. A world which wants children trained to serve it, not to serve an Almighty God. 

I have nothing whatsoever against truly Christian schools and I don’t doubt that in times past (even some which remain in the present) they served their purpose well, but we are no more commanded to put our children in Christian schools than we are to home educate them and in the present generation, certainly in England, establishing a truly God honoring school is an impossibility.........not least, because the majority of believers are perfectly content with the free provision on offer from the state!


----------



## Philip

Hemustincrease said:


> In saying that home education has been normative, I did not mean it has been the only means of education available.



For most of history education, much less home education, has been the exception, not the norm.



Hemustincrease said:


> Under Rome, and following the persecution from the Jews, Christians had no other option than to home educate their children.



False. Most Christians under Rome would have been lower-class and therefore illiterate. Such education as was available to them would have been under church auspices simply because church leadership was more likely to be literate than laity.

Historically, Christian education was seen as a church role, with family entering more actively into the picture when literacy rates began to rise in the wake of the reformation (examples being Puritan New England and Presbyterian Scotland, both of which had public education systems), but even then, homeschooling was mostly relegated to those areas (such as the American frontier) where the population was sparse enough that a school was unfeasible.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Daniel,

I know of no book-length, reasonable response to Sproul Jr.'s book. I have it. I have read part of it. I have thought about responding to it. I have 80+ pages of notes on the history of Christian education that includes a few pages defending the proper use of delegation (I'll publish here shortly). For your information, I ran across a latter blog-posting of Spourl's (here) where he explains his view a little better and uses more moderate language (for those not in the know, in his book he called fathers to repent for not homeschooling). 

That said, some of my various essays over the years touch upon the radical homeschooling viewpoint (insofar as it intersects with family-integrated church movement) (see this site). A puritanboard posting defends a wise use of age-segregation while defending instruction by non-parental authorities (see the post here. It is part of a longer discussion starting here. I have a short essay on the history of Christian education here (thus an historical refutation of Sproul Jr.'s position). 

As for the modern history of the radical homeschooling interpretation of Deut. 6, that will be forever lost in obscurity. But one of the stronger and vocal proponents of it was Doug Phillips. I would say early 2000s. It was never systematically instructed but part of the breathed air of an increasingly legalistic-type of movement. 

I have two short essays (with direct quotes) explaining radical homeschooling from a few years back when I started researching this topic (here and here). They are still relevant because such views are still being propagated. I mostly hear radical homeshooling promoted as a fulfillment of Malachi 4 (turning the heart of the children to the fathers, etc.). Phillips and Brown both quote Malachi as such as did Chris Clicka. Israel Wayne believes homeschooling is commanded. 

It was Doug Phillips that explicitly tied homeschooling and the family-integrated church movement to a revival of Malachi 4 proportions: 
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church….our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! And vice-versa; they play off of each other. Because when you understand the importance of discipleship you move in that direction…” (Doug Phillips, interview, here)


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Daniel,

Here is the relevant part of my unpublished essay, A Short History of Christian Education:

"...It is important to distinguish (not separate) these two types of education. The broader idea of nurture includes the narrow sub-set of formal education or schooling but does not necessitate a given methodology. This distinction between formal and informal education is crucial because the two ideas are easily equivocated. For instance, writers have claimed that home teaching is as old as creation, implying that everyone has homeschooled. This is not helpful in the discussion, for everyone homeschools in the sense of nurture right from birth.

There are two extremes to be avoided. On the one hand, some people seem to use the same word in a combined sense (nurture and schooling), hailing homeschooling as a revival and the best (or only) method conforming to the Bible. On the other hand, some educators discourage homeschooling and endorse private schooling as the best (or only) method conforming to the Bible.2 Protestants historically have emphasized the proper need of godly nurture in the Lord, yet they never assumed that nurture necessarily implied a specific formal schooling approach. Methods were used that best suited the circumstances and helped the most families. Our godly forefathers exercised their God-given liberty to both nurture and school their own children and delegate teaching to others, understanding that these delegates acted “in place of the parents” (in loco parentis).

Proving or disproving a particular view of educational history is difficult because of how much information is lost. The best method is to gather as much information from original sources as possible and paint a broad picture. This survey will demonstrate that from the early church period until the early 1800s, most families implemented a cooperative laisser-faire approach, mixing various schooling methods.

Bible History

A study of the Bible shows an obvious emphasis on parental—especially patriarchal—authority and training. Historically, many books have detailed the role of parents in nurture and formal education, but few have outlined any biblical basis for properly functioning delegation of teaching. This section will summarize that evidence.

Nursing, involving an intimate nurturing relationship, has bearing upon educational methodology because of the obvious in loco parentis dimension.3 If it is acceptable in the broader category of nurture that some activities may be delegated to others, then the narrower category of formal education can be exercised similarly. Exodus 2:7 suggests that the Hebrew women were willing to nurse children other than their own. Similarly, Naomi nursed Ruth’s son (Ruth 4:16). Nursing in the ancient near east was not confined to breast-feeding but could include assistance in raising the child.4 That such was true seems highly likely in the case of Mephibosheth, for the child was five years old when his nurse took him and fled (2 Sam. 4:4).

Furthermore, Abraham was commanded by God to lead and teach his household (Gen. 18:19), an extended family that included servants (Gen. 17:12, including 318 fighters). Likely he did not teach all them himself. 2 Kings 10:1-6 writes about the sons of Ahab and the attending governors who oversaw their upbringing. 2 Kings 12:1-3 notes the teaching influence of the priest, Jehoiada. The king, Jehoash, began his reign at age seven, clearly under the oversight and instruction of the priest. The text mentions the mother, but it is the instructional (torah) oversight of the priest that is emphasized. 

Jehoiada’s instruction of the king is a specific fulfillment of Leviticus 10:11 (NKJV): “and you [the priests] are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken….” This was accomplished on a grand scale during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:7-10). The king sent the priests throughout the cities to instruct them in the Law of Moses with positive effect. Deuteronomy 31:9ff. commands the priests and the elders to assemble the people every seven years to read the Law so that those children “who have not known it” may hear and learn to fear God (v.13, Deut. 6:7). This could refer to parental neglect, but it most likely indicates the assistance of the church in the education of children. The pedagogical relevance is clear: if authorities other than parents may exercise spiritual teaching over the children, then how much more may they assist in less sublime subjects (English, history, etc.)?

Nehemiah 8:1ff. (NKJV) is a clear instance of church and non-parental authority over children. To teach is to exercise a form of authority. The passage repeats the idea of “all who could hear with understanding” which strongly indicates some age differentiation. In fact, one could describe it as a proto-Sunday school class. Age differentiation is not stressed; rather, those of mature understanding attended, leaving those not able to understand (smaller children) at home or with the servants. 

Scholars suggest that, as with the surrounding cultures, the nomenclature of father and son (as perhaps used in Proverbs 5:13 and Psalm 119:99) is applied to the teacher-pupil relationship in some of the Proverbs (note 1 Corinthians 4:17, where Paul calls Timothy son). 

However, the most interesting event is the dedication of Samuel to the house of Eli (1 Sam. 1:21ff.). Hannah promised the Lord her firstborn if she were blessed with a male child. This was an unusual prayer. Yet there is indication that this was an acceptable activity. No miracles or prophecies occurred: it was simply the heart-wrenching prayer of a barren woman and the blessings of a priest—surely ordinary (although not necessarily common) events. Historically, during the Middle Ages or early America, a similar practice occurred in apprenticeships: a child would be contracted out to a master for several years, living and learning in the foster home. Even if the greater practice of virtual foster homes is no longer practiced, at the very least, this passage suggests that lesser activities of tutoring and teaching are permissible. 

Although not a popular idea in today’s culture, the Church herself has a responsibility toward the covenant children. The Great Commission commands the church to disciple, baptize and teach the nations and that includes children. Like a father in the family, the church leaders guide, instruct and discipline the flock of God, including the lambs (1 Tim. 5:1; Matt. 12:47). And Ephesians 4 stresses the office of minister as a tool for the growth of the church, which includes children. Naturally this does not mean supplanting parental responsibility but supplementing their work and exercising the Church’s own responsibility toward her covenant children. 

Our Heavenly Father implements in loco parentis. He can, as in the case of the prophets, teach each and every one of His own children directly, but instead He delegates that responsibility to the leaders of each sphere of life. As our Divine Exemplar, we should take seriously this pattern.

The culmination of the Biblical historical evidence is Christ himself. In the well-known passage of Luke 2:46-52, Christ enters the temple area, listening and asking the teachers questions. Some have confused this event with Christ’s bar mitzvah, but that did not occur until the age of thirteen and one day. What is relevant is the fact that he was still a boy legally and still “subject” to his parents (v.51, NKJV). Clearly, Christ as our human example points to the acceptability of non-parental authorities teaching children."

2. The former opinion is expressed by the about page at Vision Forum, About Us | VisionForum.com “This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture.” It is labeled a revival as well, Homeschooling: A Spiritual Revival, online at lifeway.com. The latter opinion is expressed by Prof. D. Engelsma in Reformed Education, p.14ff.
3. Weaning could occur up to three years, cp. extra-biblical source 2 Macc. 7:27.
4. In Genesis 24:59 & 35:8, Rebekah honored her nurse, suggesting that Deborah helped raise her.
5. One must not write this off as a bad example of an ungodly king. Wicked people can enact formally correct actions (note Cain’s line, Gen. 4:20ff.).


----------



## Jack K

We should keep in mind that not long ago there were many, many Reformed churches in America (notably CRCs and RCAs) that ran excellent Christian schools. In many of those churches a family that failed to send their kids to the church school and instead schooled them at home would likely receive an uncomfortable visit from the elders. Now we have Reformed believers speaking of home schooling as if it were the Eleventh Commandment. My, how things change in just 50 years or so!


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Of note on Deuteronomy: Neither the English or Dutch annotated bibles of the 1600s interpret 6:7 the radical homeschooling way nor Lange's commentary of the late 1800s (a compilation of commentaries). Nor Calvin (in his sermons or commentary), Jackson, Kline or Rushdnooney or Wright.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Shawn Mathis said:


> Of note on Deuteronomy: Neither the English or Dutch annotated bibles of the 1600s interpret 6:7 the radical homeschooling way nor Lange's commentary of the late 1800s (a compilation of commentaries). Nor Calvin (in his sermons or commentary), Jackson, Kline or Rushdnooney or Wright.



Shawn,

I consulted John Gill as well, and he does not adopt the exclusive home-schooling interpretation either.

Thanks for your other posts, which were very helpful; I am going to print those of and study them more thorough as time permits. Where are you hoping to publish the essay?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly dispute that homeschooling was the norm for 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, one need only read Edersheim's classic works on Jewish Social Life at the time of Christ. Schools existed at every Synagogue for elementary education with some children moving on to more in-depth study. Determining whether this was education by either the Family, the State, or the Government commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. It was not an "either-or" choice but a "both-and". I only agree with this to point out that the issues are more complex than insisting upon the idea that the way home-schoolers educate (I include my family in that lot) have some kind of corner on _THE_ historical way to educate. An interesting look at the history of America is that the first parochial schools established were by Roman Catholics because they viewed the education of the public schools as Protestant in many cities throughout the land. I would not maintain that the educational system in many cities and counties in the U.S. are remotely so anymore but it is not axiomatic that the State, Church, and Family cannot participate in the education of children in any context. I simply find myself in a country and age where the State is assuming to itself certain prerogatives that do not belong to it under God and so it does not currently function in a way that complements Church and Family but often acts against it and so I must quietly protest my educating my children in cooperation with the Church.
Click to expand...


Rich, I think that is a price-less statement of the question. I have had about a zillion discussions with exclusive home-schoolers and they cannot seem to grasp that the assistance of the church or state in education does not constitute "taking away" duties from the family, but instead should be seen as assistance which enables the family to fulfil its duties. In their mind, however, it is all or nothing. I suspect this flows from their Kuyperian suppositions and their failure to understand the historic Reformed view that the civil magistrate was the "father of the commonwealth" and thus also has an interest in seeing that the children in his common-wealth are instructed in the fear of the Lord.

I also found a really interesting quote in the book you have mentioned:



> For, every town and community levied its own taxes for the maintenance of synagogue, elementary schools, public baths, the support of the poor, the maintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates, and other general requirements. … The Rabbinical arrangements for public education, health, and charity were, in every respect, far in advance of modern legislation, although here also they took care themselves not to take the grievous burden which they laid upon others, by expressly exempting from civic taxes all those who devoted themselves to the study of the law.



Alfred Edersheim, _Sketches of Jewish social life in the days of Christ_ (New York, 1881), p. 53. 

Although in light of Ezra 7:24, I am not sure the Rabbis were entirely wrong on that one!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly dispute that homeschooling was the norm for 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, one need only read Edersheim's classic works on Jewish Social Life at the time of Christ. Schools existed at every Synagogue for elementary education with some children moving on to more in-depth study. Determining whether this was education by either the Family, the State, or the Government commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. It was not an "either-or" choice but a "both-and". I only agree with this to point out that the issues are more complex than insisting upon the idea that the way home-schoolers educate (I include my family in that lot) have some kind of corner on _THE_ historical way to educate. An interesting look at the history of America is that the first parochial schools established were by Roman Catholics because they viewed the education of the public schools as Protestant in many cities throughout the land. I would not maintain that the educational system in many cities and counties in the U.S. are remotely so anymore but it is not axiomatic that the State, Church, and Family cannot participate in the education of children in any context. I simply find myself in a country and age where the State is assuming to itself certain prerogatives that do not belong to it under God and so it does not currently function in a way that complements Church and Family but often acts against it and so I must quietly protest my educating my children in cooperation with the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, I think that is a price-less statement of the question. I have had about a zillion discussions with exclusive home-schoolers and they cannot seem to grasp that the assistance of the church or state in education does not constitute "taking away" duties from the family, but instead should be seen as assistance which enables the family to fulfil its duties. In their mind, however, it is all or nothing. I suspect this flows from their Kuyperian suppositions and their failure to understand the historic Reformed view that the civil magistrate was the "father of the commonwealth" and thus also has an interest in seeing that the children in his common-wealth are instructed in the fear of the Lord.
> 
> I also found a really interesting quote in the book you have mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For, every town and community levied its own taxes for the maintenance of synagogue, elementary schools, public baths, the support of the poor, the maintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates, and other general requirements. … The Rabbinical arrangements for public education, health, and charity were, in every respect, far in advance of modern legislation, although here also they took care themselves not to take the grievous burden which they laid upon others, by expressly exempting from civic taxes all those who devoted themselves to the study of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alfred Edersheim, _Sketches of Jewish social life in the days of Christ_ (New York, 1881), p. 53.
> 
> Although in light of Ezra 7:24, I am not sure the Rabbis were entirely wrong on that one!
Click to expand...


Daniel,

I don't think you understand Kuyper very well if you are lumping him with the "radical" home-school group. Kuyper's argument for a CHRISTIAN education stemmed from his understanding of "kingdom" theology. He didn't think that parents should NOT use a public school system. However, you need to define what makes a public school system. We are talking about a Christian vs. a secular school system.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Andrew P.C. said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I don't think you understand Kuyper very well if you are lumping him with the "radical" home-school group. Kuyper's argument for a CHRISTIAN education stemmed from his understanding of "kingdom" theology. He didn't think that parents should NOT use a public school system. However, you need to define what makes a public school system. We are talking about a Christian vs. a secular school system.



Andrew, I am aware that Abraham Kuyper did not hold that position. Modern "Kuyperianism" is probably more accurately described as Neo-Kuyperianism. I do, however, think the radical home-schoolers have taken the Reconstructionist appropriation of Neo-Kuyperian sphere-sovereignty to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here is a slightly different, though closely related question: when did the idea that Deuteronomy 6:6-9 is referring to education being within the "sphere" of the family (as opposed to church or state) first get of the ground?

I recall hearing this as early as 2002, but it was not being used in order to defend exclusive home-schooling but parentally-controlled schools as well. As I understand it, the exclusive home-schoolers properly understood the implications of such exegesis and deduced that if Deuteronomy 6:6-9 means that education belongs to the sphere of the nuclear family alone, then even private Christian schools are out.


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That is very interesting; I wonder if the text was used ideologically by lay people before it was popularised in the writings of home-schooling/Reconstructionist "leaders"?



I would be more inclined to look at the institutions offering home-school material, who would have influenced their clients. As they took on more of an organisational aspect they possibly may have referred to this text as prima facie support for what they were doing, and their clients may have picked it up in the process of thinking more consistently about their "mission."

There are of course two sides to the story. We should also note the fact that the State itself has developed a "holistic" view of education, and has required a curriculum which addresses a broad range of moral areas traditionally regarded as the domain of parental instruction. "Christian" schools have also adopted this "holistic" approach. So to be fair, and to give a balanced presentation of the facts, we would have to say that the "radical" element is also found in the idea against which the home-schooling movement has reacted.


----------



## kvanlaan

A few things here. First off, Pergy says that public schools that do not contradict with what is taught in the home are fine. I think Id agree with that. Just find me one that does not conflict with the teachings within an orthodox Reformed family home and I will say no more. Second, the quality of the aforementioned denominational schools is not what it was and we know more than a few families who have withdrawn their children from those schools due to a departure from orthodoxy, to say the least. Thus the visit with the elders is often uncomfortable for both, as the family is in many cases ready to withdraw membership from the church.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Daniel,

Your are welcome. I would publish it to whoever would take it.


----------



## Hemustincrease

In the ten years that I have been home educating my children, I have not once come across (in real life, as opposed to the internet, which tends to make everything appear much bigger than it really is) anyone who believes that deuteronomy chapter 6 means that home education is the only obedient means of bringing up children. (There are many who believe (as I do) that it is the only obedient means of bringing up children in the present time, taking into account personal circumstances and available alternatives.) I have home educated 5 years in the USA and 5 years in the UK and have met and talked with many home educating families both sides of the atlantic. 



Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have had about a zillion discussions with exclusive home-schoolers and they cannot seem to grasp that the assistance of the church or state in education does not constitute "taking away" duties from the family, but instead should be seen as assistance which enables the family to fulfil its duties. In their mind, however, it is all or nothing.



What do you mean by ‘assistance’? Are you discussing times past or the present situation in the UK?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Jo,

I am glad that you have not met anyone who promotes this view. In my neck of the woods, the state-wide homeschool organization's official introductory book states as much after 10 years of use: After quoting Deut. 6:5-7 the booklet ask: 

"Questions: How exactly will we as Christian parents accomplish this? What does this look like for this generation? The only way that we can be constantly teaching, sharing, and discipling our children in the knowledge of and the ways of the Lord as we go about our routine, everyday life is to homeschool!"

But it also give mixed signals that seem to alleviate such a bald-face declaration. In these circles I know (not on the internet), radical homeschooling is promoted more by the atmosphere, innuendos, implications and unstated focus talks, books and conferences (hence my observation of homeschooling and implicit legalism). I would dare say more people are under its influence than realize it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> In the ten years that I have been home educating my children, I have not once come across (in real life, as opposed to the internet, which tends to make everything appear much bigger than it really is) anyone who believes that deuteronomy chapter 6 means that home education is the only obedient means of bringing up children. (There are many who believe (as I do) that it is the only obedient means of bringing up children in the present time, taking into account personal circumstances and available alternatives.) I have home educated 5 years in the USA and 5 years in the UK and have met and talked with many home educating families both sides of the atlantic.
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had about a zillion discussions with exclusive home-schoolers and they cannot seem to grasp that the assistance of the church or state in education does not constitute "taking away" duties from the family, but instead should be seen as assistance which enables the family to fulfil its duties. In their mind, however, it is all or nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by ‘assistance’? Are you discussing times past or the present situation in the UK?
Click to expand...


Jo, I am not condoning the present state of public education in the UK and would agree that the internet does have a tendency to make us think that movements have more influence than they actually do (and it also tends to give us a sense of our own importance which is out of touch with reality). That being said, I have encountered at least some people who have been influenced by this very teaching. And as Shawn points out the influence of this sort of thing may be more widespread than people realise. I raise this concern not because I am opposed to home-schooling, but partly because of the damage that these teachings will do to the reputations of reasonable people who home-school.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Shawn

Just read your blog. (I have an excellent book written by Kathryn Joyce called “Child Catchers’. If you haven’t read it, I’d highly recommend it. She unveils much which ought to hugely concern the true church today.) 

Nothing really to disagree with in your blog. Legalism is a snare which is all too easy to fall into, whether our ‘thing’ is homeschooling or whatever else. It ought to grieve us (the church) that a journalist who is unsaved, is highlighting the legalistic undercurrent in certain Christian circles. It is also a shame that the far greater number of home educating families who just quietly get on with life, without trying to press everybody else into their mould, simply don’t make the ‘news’. (Not suggesting they should be newsworthy, just pointing out that they do exist.) 

Whilst I agree that true Pharisaical legalism needs to be spoken against, we must be sure we do so on the side of Christ and the church and not the world (thinking of Joyce.) I have no difficulty reading the works of unsaved people and standing humbled and even corrected by them where necessary. But I would not wish to stand ‘with’ them (if you know what I mean) against the true church.........even those who have erred into legalism! 

A family which has truly become legalistic stands in need of prayer and love etc. It can be a very lonely journey to be a Christian home educating family. There are many within the church who strongly oppose what we are doing (either because of ignorant presumptions or because of strong beliefs that state schooling should be supported) which can make for difficult days. I would say there are as many, if not more, in the church who proclaim ‘their’ way (that of state schooling) as ‘the’ way than there are in home schooling circles. But because this suits the majority of believers, it isn’t jumped on quite like ‘exclusive homeschooling’ is. 

There needs to be open discussion from all parties within the local churches, rather than judgements made from afar. Home schoolers may be legalistic, or they may just be naturally drawn towards (or even pushed towards by believers who keep their distance for no other reason than that they have chosen a different educational path) ‘like’ insofar as their educational choices and end up being tarred with the same brush as the loudest member of that group.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Jo,

I concur. I also know that the English educational situation is more desperate than the America (from what my British contact says). I have only heard of churches looking down on homeschooling families from experiences in the past not currently (again out West in US).


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Perhaps one way to illustrate the meaning of Deut. 6 (over and against radical homeschooling) is to understand that everyone homeschools: I was homeschooled.


----------



## MusicMan

As a 12 year public school teacher (HS English) and a homeschooling dad, I simply cherish time with my kids, abd love teaching the things they matter. In my ministry we have moved often, and our family unity is everything. Will expound more later when I am at a keyboard. ;-)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## MusicMan

Each situation is different. I did my Masters thesis on homeschooling, and bottom line is that there is more than one viable way to educate....

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Jay, You got my interest there with "Masters thesis on homeschooling"...may I read it? You can PM me.


----------



## Convinced

Pergamum said:


> Currently in the USA, I would have a hard time sending my kids to public school. Furthermore, the US public schools don't seem to "serve" parents anymore but seem to have taken the lead role as masters over the children, telling the parents what to do instead of the other way around.


I think this is an overgeneralization. I send my kids to public school and I have not had this experience at all. I do not have a problem at all with homeschooling, we have many friends that homeschool and I think it is great. We considered it ourselves.

The US public schools are not for teaching a christian moral code or any one religious doctrine, that is for the parents. I do not advocate any religious teaching in public schools. It is possible for parents to educate their children in public schools and still obey the command in Dt chapter 6. Subjects such as Calculus, Physics, etc. did not exist when Dt was written. Public schools can offer a great education for children while still being brought up in the Lords teachings.

I do understand that public schools differ from state to state as far as how much of a worldview is taught and each parent needs to decide what is right for their own family.


----------



## Miss Marple

"The US public schools are not for teaching a christian moral code or any one religious doctrine,"

Wow, I'd take issue with that. No one is teaching from a neutral standpoint - nobody! There is a world and life view being taught at your your kids' school, and at every school. I doubt that the view being taught in the U.S. public school is biblical, although there may be the occasional teacher or text that is.

That said, can we never send our kids to anyone to learn anything unless it is from a biblical world view as we best ascertain it?

I home school. I live in San Francisco. Enough said, there.

Yet, my sons were active Boy Scouts. They took (and take) music lessons. They played on various sports teams. Even my daughters reffed soccer, and took dance classes and park and rec sports. They worked, more often than not, for non-Christian employers (janitorial, deli, babysitting. . .). And so, they were under the authority and influence of adults who definitely did not, at least usually, have a Christian world view. And they were in the company of a large number of non-Christian peers in those situations, too.

What is the difference between a childhood of schooling K-12 and these more or less part time and casual activities?

1. Parental control. I am not bound to send any child into any of these part time temporary situations, and can pull them for any reason. Sometimes we did pull them. No compulsory attendance laws broken!

2. Time. The amount of time soaking in various anti-biblical situations was much more limited. Then they could come home to much more time devoted to the antithesis.

3. Expectations. Children are constantly pushed to "do well in school," "get A's," "prepare for their future," "keep a high GPA," etc. It is like their decades-long job. Parents are usually very unhappy if children are not bringing home the grades, achievements, and test scores. Yet to achieve them, in current humanist US education, Christian beliefs and principles must be constantly hidden or denied. 

4. Snoopy do-gooder teachers who think that spanking is a crime, punishment is creating psychological trouble, abortions are for kids without parental knowledge, a knife in your car is some sort of felony, etc. 

So does home schooling solve all these issues? No. I don't have a consistent biblical worldview for a day, probably. My education of my children has been flawed. I am a sinner. Yet at least a biblical world view is the standard, and something we strive for.

You are the head of your household and are the one who must decide what is the best method of education for your family. I don't promote home school, or Christian school, as the cure for all the world's sins. But, don't be deceived into thinking that the education your children are receiving in the public schools is neutral or fact-based only. It is not.


----------



## nicnap

Baroque Norseman said:


> That's a key adjective. Classically. This would put them wildly at odds with the Vision Forum crowd.



Jacob,

What is the distinction here? What does the VF crowd advocate? (Are they the primarily vocational training crowd?)


----------



## Convinced

Miss Marple said:


> "The US public schools are not for teaching a christian moral code or any one religious doctrine,"
> 
> Wow, I'd take issue with that. No one is teaching from a neutral standpoint - nobody! There is a world and life view being taught at your your kids' school, and at every school. I doubt that the view being taught in the U.S. public school is biblical, although there may be the occasional teacher or text that is.


I think you may have misread my statement. No public school should be teaching any religious doctrine. They will be exposed to a different world view at some point in their lives and I think it may be better if it is when they are still at home so we can deal with it. But to say that the overall goal of our public schools is to indoctrinate them into some kind of pagan world view is a stretch.




Miss Marple said:


> I home school. I live in San Francisco. Enough said, there.
> Yet, my sons were active Boy Scouts. They took (and take) music lessons. They played on various sports teams. Even my daughters reffed soccer, and took dance classes and park and rec sports. They worked, more often than not, for non-Christian employers (janitorial, deli, babysitting. . .). And so, they were under the authority and influence of adults who definitely did not, at least usually, have a Christian world view. And they were in the company of a large number of non-Christian peers in those situations, too.
> 
> What is the difference between a childhood of schooling K-12 and these more or less part time and casual activities?
> 
> 1. Parental control. I am not bound to send any child into any of these part time temporary situations, and can pull them for any reason. Sometimes we did pull them. No compulsory attendance laws broken!


I have this same right in our public schools. 



Miss Marple said:


> 2. Time. The amount of time soaking in various anti-biblical situations was much more limited. Then they could come home to much more time devoted to the antithesis.


I get this comment and I have had the same thoughts, but life today is a series of unbiblical situations the minute you step out the front door. 



Miss Marple said:


> 3. Expectations. Children are constantly pushed to "do well in school," "get A's," "prepare for their future," "keep a high GPA," etc. It is like their decades-long job. Parents are usually very unhappy if children are not bringing home the grades, achievements, and test scores. Yet to achieve them, in current humanist US education, Christian beliefs and principles must be constantly hidden or denied.


I strongly disagree with this. This seems like stereotyping rather than reality.



Miss Marple said:


> 4. Snoopy do-gooder teachers who think that spanking is a crime, punishment is creating psychological trouble, abortions are for kids without parental knowledge, a knife in your car is some sort of felony, etc.


There are teachers that think this way, however they are not the norm in my neck of the woods.



Miss Marple said:


> So does home schooling solve all these issues? No. I don't have a consistent biblical worldview for a day, probably. My education of my children has been flawed. I am a sinner. Yet at least a biblical world view is the standard, and something we strive for.


Same as my home.



Miss Marple said:


> You are the head of your household and are the one who must decide what is the best method of education for your family. I don't promote home school, or Christian school, as the cure for all the world's sins. But, don't be deceived into thinking that the education your children are receiving in the public schools is neutral or fact-based only. It is not.


My wife and I have decided that public schools are where we want our children. Our schools are pretty much fact based and when there is a controversial subject being taught we as parents have always had the option to have our child not attend or do an alternative activity. I am aware that other parts of the country this may not be the case.

It also gives us an opportunity to show them a little bit of what the world believes before they leave home so they can properly handle challenging topics when they are young adults. 

My children know that not everything that is taught in school will agree with the Bible and that they do not have to agree with it but need to learn the material anyway. For example, they have learned that scientists think the earth is around 4.6 billion years old, that science does seem to indicate that is true, however the Bible seems to indicate the earth is much younger than that. I see no problem teaching my children what the current scientific theories are. We can have these discussions at home to strengthen their faith, not destroy it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Miss Marple said:


> 3. Expectations. Children are constantly pushed to "do well in school," "get A's," "prepare for their future," "keep a high GPA," etc. It is like their decades-long job. Parents are usually very unhappy if children are not bringing home the grades, achievements, and test scores. Yet to achieve them, in current humanist US education, Christian beliefs and principles must be constantly hidden or denied.



While I can agree with your basic concerns about public schooling as it is currently practiced, do you believe that any student who has done well at a public school has done so as a result of compromising their principles? I think that it is hard to sustain such a thesis.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Convinced said:


> But to say that the overall goal of our public schools is to indoctrinate them into some kind of pagan world view is a stretch.



It’s a stretch which public schools are happy to make, despite so many Christians living in ignorance of it (or denial) and have been doing for a very long time now.


----------



## RamistThomist

nicnap said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a key adjective. Classically. This would put them wildly at odds with the Vision Forum crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob,
> 
> What is the distinction here? What does the VF crowd advocate? (Are they the primarily vocational training crowd?)
Click to expand...


From what I gathered from them, homeschooling only, though I am sure there are many who identify with FV yet demur from such a position. RCjr came close to it in some of his Basement Tapes. In any case, almost all would categorically condemn the _idea_ of government-schooling as wrong, and not simply the Western decadence of it. Unfortunately for them, such a view is wildly at odds with Protestant teaching on the subject.


----------



## Miss Marple

"While can agree with your basic concerns about public schooling as it is currently practiced, do you believe that any student who has done well at a public school has done so as a result of compromising their principles? I think that it is hard to sustain such a thesis. "

How do you pass a science test without espousing evolution? How can you pass health without at least wallowing in sinful sexual theory? How can you get an A in English without reading the total smut sometimes assigned? 

It's not at all hard to sustain such a thesis! I went to public school in the U.S.


----------



## Convinced

Miss Marple said:


> How do you pass a science test without espousing evolution? How can you pass health without at least wallowing in sinful sexual theory? How can you get an A in English without reading the total smut sometimes assigned?


Why is espousing evolutionary theory on a test a bad thing? We need our kids to understand current scientific theories and thoughts. We don't have to believe them, just understand them. Nothing sinful in that. If my kids want to pursue something that includes biology as a career they are going to have to understand evolutionary theory.


----------



## RamistThomist

Miss Marple said:


> "
> 
> How do you pass a science test without espousing evolution? How can you pass health without at least wallowing in sinful sexual theory? How can you get an A in English without reading the total smut sometimes assigned?



Depends largely on school and district. I teach in the public schools and I've never seen these scenarios happen. I've seen some of my gifted students openly challenge teachers on evolution. Granted, what I am saying is anecdotal, but that's largely my point. I can point to horrific disasters in the homeschool community as well (VF anyone?).

I teach English and we read "smut" like Romeo and Juliet (stupid kids, killing, suicide), Scarlet Letter (adultery), Anthem (Libertarian worldview), Count of Monte Cristo (French people), Julius Caesar (Italian people), Mythology (Greek people and their truly smutty gods), etc.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Education is local. Family nurture is local. It is unwise to make to many sweeping allegations about schooling choices without knowing both of these variables.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Miss Marple said:


> How do you pass a science test without espousing evolution? How can you pass health without at least wallowing in sinful sexual theory? How can you get an A in English without reading the total smut sometimes assigned?
> 
> It's not at all hard to sustain such a thesis! I went to public school in the U.S.



Miss Marple,

Just to be clear, are you saying then that every Christian pupil who has got good grades at a public school has compromised their faith? What about people who have excelled in Maths? Did they do so by abandoning biblical principles?

I tend to agree with Jacob and Shawn on this issue. While it is credible to think that Christian young people have been harmed by unbiblical teaching in public schools, it is also true that many people have been harmed by unbiblical teaching in homeschools. Indeed, the latter may be even more dangerous in some respects as error has been inculcated in the name of the true religion.


----------



## Miss Marple

No Daniel, I'd not accuse every Christian who got good grades of that. But how do they manage?

My questions were not accusatory (tone does not translate in text), but rather inquisitive: How can I get an A in High School Biology if I don't want to answer questions with evolutionary answers? How can I get an A in English if I don't read Portnoy's Complaint? How can I get an A in Health if I don't want to sit through the homo. sex demo? (Actually given in our public schools utilizing props).

Put a genuinely questioning tone into my questions, rather than an accusatory one. What if I don't want to insult the Puritans during history exams? 

There there is the behavioral stuff. We can't wear apparel with American flags on it during Cinco de Mayo, it seems. We have cross dressing days and speak up for homosexual days. We have condoms distributed and pro-fornication messages taught. Teachers using God's name in vain, students being allowed to do the same with no reprisal. Etc. I don't fling this as accusation, but in genuine wonderment. I wouldn't stay in that sort of environment as an adult, if I had any choice in the matter.

Perhaps other states have better situations. I don't know.


----------



## RamistThomist

Miss Marple said:


> No Daniel, I'd not accuse every Christian who got good grades of that. But how do they manage?
> 
> My questions were not accusatory (tone does not translate in text), but rather inquisitive: How can I get an A in High School Biology if I don't want to answer questions with evolutionary answers? How can I get an A in English if I don't read Portnoy's Complaint? How can I get an A in Health if I don't want to sit through the homo. sex demo? (Actually given in our public schools utilizing props).
> 
> Put a genuinely questioning tone into my questions, rather than an accusatory one. What if I don't want to insult the Puritans during history exams?
> 
> There there is the behavioral stuff. We can't wear apparel with American flags on it during Cinco de Mayo, it seems. We have cross dressing days and speak up for homosexual days. We have condoms distributed and pro-fornication messages taught. Teachers using God's name in vain, students being allowed to do the same with no reprisal. Etc. I don't fling this as accusation, but in genuine wonderment. I wouldn't stay in that sort of environment as an adult, if I had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Perhaps other states have better situations. I don't know.



I don't doubt these situations exist--I've just never seen them. Further, many public school districts are afraid of Fox News. If a student feels that his/her convictions are threatened, Fox can bring a PR nightmare. See the TV show _Daria_ for examples.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Miss Marple said:


> No Daniel, I'd not accuse every Christian who got good grades of that. But how do they manage?



Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Miss Marple said:


> No Daniel, I'd not accuse every Christian who got good grades of that. But how do they manage?
> 
> My questions were not accusatory (tone does not translate in text), but rather inquisitive: How can I get an A in High School Biology if I don't want to answer questions with evolutionary answers? How can I get an A in English if I don't read Portnoy's Complaint? How can I get an A in Health if I don't want to sit through the homo. sex demo? (Actually given in our public schools utilizing props).



Good questions. But cannot be answered without knowing the specifics. I went to public school all my childhood (80s). I never had to compromise to my recollection. Biology taught evolution but there was no test question that stated: "Which is true: creationism or evolution?" And if there was someone could answer "wrongly" as far as the teacher is concerned, but answer everything else and still get an A. Public schools, as near as I can tell, are not too epistemologically self-conscience enough to bother asking such questions. My college courses never did.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I tend to agree with Jacob and Shawn on this issue. While it is credible to think that Christian young people have been harmed by unbiblical teaching in public schools, it is also true that many people have been harmed by unbiblical teaching in homeschools. Indeed, the latter may be even more dangerous in some respects as error has been inculcated in the name of the true religion.



I’m not understanding the need to compare ‘harm done’ in public school with ‘harm done’ in home school? 
How we educate our children (as believers) isn’t founded upon pragmatic conclusions. It should be based on the Word of God and parental obedience to that Word.

I don’t sit my children under those _who can do no other_ than to instruct them in humanistic deception which utterly opposes the truth as laid out in Scripture, for the very simple reason that God was not and is not the Author of anything which could ever be counted as ‘neutral’ or irreligious. God has commanded us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is impossible to do, when one’s children are sitting under humanist instruction day in and day out. _Education is never neutral_. The humanists understand that very well, which is why they have always pushed to get their hands on our children as young as possible, with the sole aim of shaping their minds in accordance with their agenda. Sadly, the majority of Christian parents continue to claim that education is neutral and so willingly hand their children over to those who know otherwise.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with Jacob and Shawn on this issue. While it is credible to think that Christian young people have been harmed by unbiblical teaching in public schools, it is also true that many people have been harmed by unbiblical teaching in homeschools. Indeed, the latter may be even more dangerous in some respects as error has been inculcated in the name of the true religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not understanding the need to compare ‘harm done’ in public school with ‘harm done’ in home school?
Click to expand...


I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.



> How we educate our children (as believers) isn’t founded upon pragmatic conclusions. It should be based on the Word of God and parental obedience to that Word.



While few would disagree with that, the historic Reformed faith has rejected any such "regulative principle of life." 


> I don’t sit my children under those _who can do no other_ than to instruct them in humanistic deception which utterly opposes the truth as laid out in Scripture, for the very simple reason that God was not and is not the Author of anything which could ever be counted as ‘neutral’ or irreligious.



That's rather extreme and really depends on where you are. If you were in the San Francisco gay community, you would have a strong point. 



> God has commanded us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is impossible to do, when one’s children are sitting under humanist instruction day in and day out.



And that assumes every public school educator is a card-carrying ACLU member who can't wait to teach the students about gay s3x. I hope that isn't true of me.




> _Education is never neutral_.



That may be true, but I've noticed that Van Tillians--if you are one--have a hard time moving from how their theory necessarily connects to the specifics of a discipline. Does our knowledge of how a parabola functions *change* simply because we say "Jesus' Parabola" (RCjr came very close to saying that in a basement tape).



> The humanists understand that very well, which is why they have always pushed to get their hands on our children as young as possible, with the sole aim of shaping their minds in accordance with their agenda. Sadly, the majority of Christian parents continue to claim that education is neutral and so willingly hand their children over to those who know otherwise.



This is more of a string of assertions than an actual argument, so I will hold up here.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> How we educate our children (as believers) isn’t founded upon pragmatic conclusions. It should be based on the Word of God and parental obedience to that Word.



Are you advocating a regulative principle of education here? As far as I am aware, nobody on this has said it is fine to disobey the word of God.



Hemustincrease said:


> I’m not understanding the need to compare ‘harm done’ in public school with ‘harm done’ in home school?



If you do not do that then you will be more prone to missing homeschooling blind-spots. What I have often found is that homeschoolers are very quick to point out the faults of public schools, but get ultra-defensive once you point out error in homeschooling circles. Besides, what is more dangerous, a secularist public school or a Roman Catholic homeschool? Probably the latter, because it teaches anti-christianity in the name of Christianity.



Hemustincrease said:


> I don’t sit my children under those who can do no other than to instruct them in humanistic deception which utterly opposes the truth as laid out in Scripture, for the very simple reason that God was not and is not the Author of anything which could ever be counted as ‘neutral’ or irreligious.



What is religious about 2 + 2 = 4. Is a non-Christian teaching someone that 2 + 2 = 4 any better or worse than a Christian teaching someone the same thing? This is not to say that there is no such thing as Christian education, but Christian education (at least as I understand it) primarily meant that children were to be taught the scriptures and the Shorter Catechism as part of their schooling; I never recall anyone writing a book on "Christian Maths" or "Christian woodwork" prior to the late 20th century.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Baroque Norseman said:


> I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.



What reason do you have for bringing up the sins of others in this discussion? What bearing does that have on the subject at hand? 


Baroque Norseman said:


> While few would disagree with that, the historic Reformed faith has rejected any such "regulative principle of life."



Reformed faith must require obedience to the Word of God. How we educate our children needs to be in line with Scripture just as every other part of our life needs to be. I’m not suggesting a regulative principle of life. I’m simply suggesting we obey God in this area of life. 




Baroque Norseman said:


> I don’t sit my children under those who can do no other than to instruct them in humanistic deception which utterly opposes the truth as laid out in Scripture, for the very simple reason that God was not and is not the Author of anything which could ever be counted as ‘neutral’ or irreligious.
> That's rather extreme and really depends on where you are. If you were in the San Francisco gay community, you would have a strong point.



State schools in the USA and the UK follow a ‘national curriculum’. Teachers are all trained and certified by state boards of education to follow that curriculum. I’m not seeing anything extreme in what I said. It is simply a fact of today. 




Baroque Norseman said:


> God has commanded us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is impossible to do, when one’s children are sitting under humanist instruction day in and day out.
> And that assumes every public school educator is a card-carrying ACLU member who can't wait to teach the students about gay s3x. I hope that isn't true of me.



Whatever the personal faith of a teacher might be, when they are teaching in a state school, they are teaching in accordance with the national curriculum, which is at it’s core, humanist. 


Baroque Norseman said:


> Education is never neutral.
> That may be true, but I've noticed that Van Tillians--if you are one--have a hard time moving from how their theory necessarily connects to the specifics of a discipline. Does our knowledge of how a parabola functions *change* simply because we say "Jesus' Parabola" (RCjr came very close to saying that in a basement tape).



Education is not neutral. Do we believe that He created all things (including the perfection found in Math, physics, biology etc) or don’t we? If we do, then how can we teach any of those things without giving the glory to God? Humanist instruction exalts man in all these (and every other) disciplines and completely ignores the Creator. 


Baroque Norseman said:


> The humanists understand that very well, which is why they have always pushed to get their hands on our children as young as possible, with the sole aim of shaping their minds in accordance with their agenda. Sadly, the majority of Christian parents continue to claim that education is neutral and so willingly hand their children over to those who know otherwise.
> This is more of a string of assertions than an actual argument, so I will hold up here.



It is a point of fact which I’m yet to find anybody willing or able to deny.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Baroque Norseman said:


> but I've noticed that Van Tillians--if you are one--have a hard time moving from how their theory necessarily connects to the specifics of a discipline



This comment is a bit , but that is precisely what I found with respect to history. Indeed, I actually noticed quite a lot of overlap between Van Tillian arguments and those proffered by post-modernists against objective history. In order to actually "do" history I found that I had to act like a Common Sense Realist.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If you do not do that then you will be more prone to missing homeschooling blind-spots. What I have often found is that homeschoolers are very quick to point out the faults of public schools, but get ultra-defensive once you point out error in homeschooling circles.



If a person were pointing out error in the concept of home education (ie showing from Scripture where home education is contrary to God’s Word etc) that would be one thing but what usually happens (as has happened on this thread) is that individual men or women who happen to home school their children are honed in on and their personal sins are used as some kind of case against home education per se.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> What reason do you have for bringing up the sins of others in this discussion? What bearing does that have on the subject at hand?



I think Jacob's point is that you cannot make sweeping generalisations about either public schools or homeschools without knowing all the specifics. I know plenty of people who think that because they have met some weird, cult-like people who homeschool that therefore they can simply pigeon-hole everybody who homeschools as weird and cult-like. Likewise, I know plenty of people (mostly on-line) who seriously believe that everyone who sends their children to a public school (irrespective of the circumstances) are "sacrificing their children to Molech", or, are "trusting in the Messianic State for salvation".[1] Neither of these approaches is right, because in both cases the people making these sweeping assertions simply are not privy to enough information in order to safely come to such conclusions.

[1] I am not saying that to be sensational; it really does happen.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What is religious about 2 + 2 = 4. Is a non-Christian teaching someone that 2 + 2 = 4 any better or worse than a Christian teaching someone the same thing? This is not to say that there is no such thing as Christian education, but Christian education (at least as I understand it) primarily meant that children were to be taught the scriptures and the Shorter Catechism as part of their schooling; I never recall anyone writing a book on "Christian Maths" or "Christian woodwork" prior to the late 20th century.



You haven’t looked into education very far then. The Puritans (for example) glorified God in every single discipline and whilst modern minds may think God cannot be (or does not need to be) glorified in the perfection that is 2 + 2 =4, our forefathers most certainly did. 

Education does not become ‘Christian’ by adding in a catechism class or plastering Bible verses on the walls.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Related to the OP: I have a book on family integrated churches and radical homeschooling and the history of Christian education: Uniting Church and Family (kindle edition).


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Neither of these approaches is right, because in both cases the people making these sweeping assertions simply are not privy to enough information in order to safely come to such conclusions.



State schools follow national curriculums. I don’t need to visit every single school in the country to know what is taught within it. It isn’t a sweeping assertion to point out the fact (which I stress again, humanists are happy to declare publicly) that the national curriculum has humanism at it’s core and is diametrically opposed to Christianity.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> If a person were pointing out error in the concept of home education (ie showing from Scripture where home education is contrary to God’s Word etc) that would be one thing but what usually happens (as has happened on this thread) is that individual men or women who happen to home school their children are honed in on and their personal sins are used as some kind of case against home education per se.



Who has argued against home-education per se?


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I've noticed that Van Tillians--if you are one--have a hard time moving from how their theory necessarily connects to the specifics of a discipline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment is a bit , but that is precisely what I found with respect to history. Indeed, I actually noticed quite a lot of overlap between Van Tillian arguments and those proffered by post-modernists against objective history. In order to actually "do" history I found that I had to act like a Common Sense Realist.
Click to expand...


Scripture itself does not move from God-interpreted facts to the specifics of a discipline. It is left to the discipline to work these matters out. As for common sense realism, CVT stood on the shoulders of old Princeton as well as Amsterdam, and thereby incorporated the realistic elements which were necessary for objective factuality.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> You haven’t looked into education very far then. The Puritans (for example) glorified God in every single discipline and whilst modern minds may think God cannot be (or does not need to be) glorified in the perfection that is 2 + 2 =4, our forefathers most certainly did.
> 
> Education does not become ‘Christian’ by adding in a catechism class or plastering Bible verses on the walls



While I may be mistaken on this issue, the idea that I have not looked into education is rather silly. Glorifying God in the common affairs of life is a very different thing from asserting that there is any such thing as "Christian Maths"; you are confusing early Reformed and modern Kuyperian approaches to education here. The early Reformed were adamant that public schools inculcate children in the scriptures and the catechism, but this is not the same thing as we find in Reconstructionist/Van Tillian education circles today. What is specifically Christian about 2 + 2 = 4? It is part of God's creation, but that does not mean it is something inherently religious like preaching or the sacraments.

Your argument would be strengthened if you would pause to consider the difference between commonality and neutrality. Just because something is common does not mean that it is neutral.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> State schools follow national curriculums. I don’t need to visit every single school in the country to know what is taught within it. It isn’t a sweeping assertion to point out the fact (which I stress again, humanists are happy to declare publicly) that the national curriculum has humanism at it’s core and is diametrically opposed to Christianity.



But all this proves is that state schools are circumstantially wrong. It does not prove that a publicly-funded school is inherently sinful.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> While I may be mistaken on this issue, the idea that I have not looked into education is rather silly.


 It was said tongue in cheek. I did not actually suppose that you had not studied the matter.  




Reformed Covenanter said:


> Glorifying God in the common affairs of life is a very different thing from asserting that there is any such thing as "Christian Maths"; you are confusing early Reformed and modern Kuyperian approaches to education here. The early Reformed were adamant that public schools inculcate children in the scriptures and the catechism, but this is not the same thing as we find in Reconstructionist/Van Tillian education circles today. What is specifically Christian about 2 + 2 = 4? It is part of God's creation, but that does not mean it is something inherently religious like preaching or the sacraments.



I’m not in any ‘circles’. I am simply a mother who loves the Lord, loves His Word and hates every false way. I haven’t chosen to home educate my children because I’ve been brainwashed by some ‘circle’ of Van Tillians (do they have three heads?).

The Puritans and Reformers would consider it utter madness to do what the majority of Christian parents do today. They would think we had all lost our heads (or grown two more).


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What is specifically Christian about 2 + 2 = 4? It is part of God's creation, but that does not mean it is something inherently religious like preaching or the sacraments.



Why do you believe 2 + 2 = 4 should have any moral importance? It is inherently religious.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What reason do you have for bringing up the sins of others in this discussion? What bearing does that have on the subject at hand?
Click to expand...


I had thought you had brought up the sins of others, so I returned the favor. 



Baroque Norseman said:


> While few would disagree with that, the historic Reformed faith has rejected any such "regulative principle of life."



Reformed faith must require obedience to the Word of God. How we educate our children needs to be in line with Scripture just as every other part of our life needs to be. I’m not suggesting a regulative principle of life. I’m simply suggesting we obey God in this area of life. [/quote]

No one is saying disobey God. I am simply pointing out that the Bible doesn't give us a "curriculum" on how-to in education and the Reformed fathers were wise in seeing that and so denying a regulative principle of everyday life.




Baroque Norseman said:


> I don’t sit my children under those who can do no other than to instruct them in humanistic deception which utterly opposes the truth as laid out in Scripture, for the very simple reason that God was not and is not the Author of anything which could ever be counted as ‘neutral’ or irreligious.
> That's rather extreme and really depends on where you are. If you were in the San Francisco gay community, you would have a strong point.





> State schools in the USA and the UK follow a ‘national curriculum’. Teachers are all trained and certified by state boards of education to follow that curriculum. I’m not seeing anything extreme in what I said. It is simply a fact of today.



I've written several of these curricula on the local level. The national curriculum, such that it is, is more of guidelines to cover. They give the districts relative autonomy in implementing it. 




Baroque Norseman said:


> God has commanded us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is impossible to do, when one’s children are sitting under humanist instruction day in and day out.
> And that assumes every public school educator is a card-carrying ACLU member who can't wait to teach the students about gay s3x. I hope that isn't true of me.



Whatever the personal faith of a teacher might be, when they are teaching in a state school, they are teaching in accordance with the national curriculum, which is at it’s core, humanist. [/quote]

Since we are simply using assertions, I will assert "No, it isn't." 



Baroque Norseman said:


> Education is never neutral.
> That may be true, but I've noticed that Van Tillians--if you are one--have a hard time moving from how their theory necessarily connects to the specifics of a discipline. Does our knowledge of how a parabola functions *change* simply because we say "Jesus' Parabola" (RCjr came very close to saying that in a basement tape).



Education is not neutral. Do we believe that He created all things (including the perfection found in Math, physics, biology etc) or don’t we? If we do, then how can we teach any of those things without giving the glory to God? Humanist instruction exalts man in all these (and every other) disciplines and completely ignores the Creator. [/quote]

Again, these are broad, generalized presuppositional platitudes. I want to see how the function of a parabola changes when we put "Jesus" in front of it. This is where I humbled myself and realized what Dr Scott Clark and DG Hart were teaching: The Reformed faith was liberating because it could add the category of "Common" besides that of Sacred and Profane.


Baroque Norseman said:


> The humanists understand that very well, which is why they have always pushed to get their hands on our children as young as possible, with the sole aim of shaping their minds in accordance with their agenda. Sadly, the majority of Christian parents continue to claim that education is neutral and so willingly hand their children over to those who know otherwise.
> This is more of a string of assertions than an actual argument, so I will hold up here.





> It is a point of fact which I’m yet to find anybody willing or able to deny.



I don't say education is "neutral" (although I'm no longer impressed by Presup shock rhetoric). I invoke the Reformed category of "common."


----------



## Hemustincrease

> Since we are simply using assertions, I will assert "No, it isn’t."



That you don’t believe public schools are pushing/rooted upon a humanist agenda goes a long way to show just how successful they (humanists) have been.


----------



## MW

Hemustincrease said:


> Since we are simply using assertions, I will assert "No, it isn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you don’t believe public schools are pushing/rooted upon a humanist agenda goes a long way to show just how successful they (humanists) have been.
Click to expand...


I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature. The problem is that education, along with many other western institutions, have been essentially built on Christian presuppositions and principles, and present day secular education is actively and consciously seeking to shed its "Christian" presuppositions and principles, thus making them actively and consciously non-Christian. These institutions are not simply non-Christian by some "natural" or "common" default setting. They are non-Christian by choice and effort. This is what makes them inimical to Christian values and gives rise to the desire for Christian alternatives insofar as Christians seek to live according to their values. If non-Christian children are permitted an education which fits them for life on the basis of non-Christian values, equity demands that Christian children should be permitted an education which fits them for life on the basis of Christian values.


----------



## Hemustincrease

armourbearer said:


> If non-Christian children are permitted an education which fits them for life on the basis of non-Christian values, equity demands that Christian children should be permitted an education which fits them for life on the basis of Christian principles.



I do see your point but of course humanism, by it’s very nature, does not and never could permit such equity but rather demands injustice and tyranny (truth, as laid out in Scripture, being it’s number one enemy).


----------



## Reformation

Norseman, what is your occupation? What organization employs you?


----------



## Tim

armourbearer said:


> These institutions are not simply non-Christian by some "natural" or "common" default setting. They are non-Christian by choice and effort. This is what makes them inimical to Christian values



Right!


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In recent years this passage has been cited in an attempt to prove that a) home-schooling is the best or only way to educate children; b) the state cannot financially maintain education, as this duty has been given to the "sphere" of the nuclear family.
> 
> What are the main problems with such exegesis? I can think of several problems, the primary objection being that it appears to be an ideological assumption read into the text, rather than a teaching derived from a fair analysis of the passage.
> 
> I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?



As a reminder, this is the original post question. 

I would point out: 

1. The broader text is the law of God (as given them through Moses) and not the particular discipline of reading, writing, math, etc. 
2. It is not necessarily exclusively the family by virtue of the writing being required on the gates. I looked up every occurrence of gates at one time and virtually all occurrences are city gates. 
3. There is archaeological evidence of these writings inserted in containers in the city gates.
4. This suggests that more than the family is involved; it is the entire godly community.
5. The text does not say _only _the parents can teach the children. Nor does it _forbid _others from teaching them. 
EDIT: 6. This section begins the exposition of the First Commandment (not the Fifth, see Calvin, Wright, others).
7. Per LCQ99: That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times: it is parents duty to make sure children learn the Word of God and useful skills for life. But such a duty is not always to be done by them at all times (contra radical homeschoolers). I must protect life, but I am not called to make that a living (like some who are police or medics). 

I have not met a radical homeschooler who would actually sit down and discuss their view. They usually just quote another verse or use Van Til in an inappropriate way.


----------



## chuckd

armourbearer said:


> If non-Christian children are permitted an education which fits them for life on the basis of non-Christian values, equity demands that Christian children should be permitted an education which fits them for life on the basis of Christian values.



But there is no "education which fits them for life on the basis of Christian values" in the public schools. Where do you send your children?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

chuckd said:


> "education which fits them for life on the basis of Christian values"



Hello Chuck, I would like to understand your question but the way you phrase it is unclear to me: "on the basis of Christian values." What exactly does that mean? Does that mean only parents can teach their children, say, math? (Per the original post question). Can they learn form a tutor who is not a Christian? Would a 10 year old understand that the one and the many of math is only understandable from a Christian philosophy? If not, then are we teaching him "Christian" math in homeschooling? If so, then another can tutor that subject who is not a Christian?

Please don't take these questions as adversarial but inquisitive: generalities are easy. But it's the details that make up life.

thanks,


----------



## a mere housewife

It might also be helpful to bear in mind that public schools are largely run by civilians with a variety of beliefs: they are not going to be comprehensively effective at inculcating any particular agenda, though various teachers may be more influential (I imagine Jacob is a teacher most of his students will remember for making them think and for taking a genuine interest). A Catholic school, for instance, would probably be much more effective, where the teachers are mostly committed to the same thing, at their propaganda -- and a homeschool is actually about the most effective place of all, at least up to the point where children might find it repressive and rebel against it. Peers are often the more really destructive influence in less controlled environments. Parents credit other organisations with the same comprehensive control and formative influence (and dedication) that they themselves possess, and that is very often simply not the case. Loving parents are often the people most pitched and determined to try to see that their kids turn out a certain way (no one else has quite the same stake in those little ones): and though it's very true that there are some people out there with incredibly destructive agendas -- and it is terribly wrong to be careless with one's children -- projecting the same level of determination onto everyone else ignores all kinds of actualities.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformation said:


> Norseman, what is your occupation? What organization employs you?



I am a public school teacher.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> I’m not in any ‘circles’. I am simply a mother who loves the Lord, loves His Word and hates every false way. I haven’t chosen to home educate my children because I’ve been brainwashed by some ‘circle’ of Van Tillians (do they have three heads?).



_Every false way_ does not merely refer to the current condition of public schooling; if you hate every false way then consistency demands that you must be equally (if not more) opposed to either heretical teaching among homeschoolers and to any dogma which would make homeschooling an absolute in all ages and places - which is a violation of our Christian liberty. But since you stated earlier in the thread that you were not advocating the extremist form of homeschooling espoused by some, then I do not see how we disagree.




Hemustincrease said:


> The Puritans and Reformers would consider it utter madness to do what the majority of Christian parents do today. They would think we had all lost our heads (or grown two more).



Generally speaking, I would agree with you. However, I would also suggest that they would have frowned upon radical homeschooling as well. Since you do not agree with radical homeschooling, I think we are on the same page here.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not in any ‘circles’. I am simply a mother who loves the Lord, loves His Word and hates every false way. I haven’t chosen to home educate my children because I’ve been brainwashed by some ‘circle’ of Van Tillians (do they have three heads?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Every false way_ does not merely refer to the current condition of public schooling; if you hate every false way then consistency demands that you must be equally (if not more) opposed to either heretical teaching among homeschoolers and to any dogma which would make homeschooling an absolute in all ages and places - which is a violation of our Christian liberty. But since you stated earlier in the thread that you were not advocating the extremist form of homeschooling espoused by some, then I do not see how we disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Puritans and Reformers would consider it utter madness to do what the majority of Christian parents do today. They would think we had all lost our heads (or grown two more).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, I would agree with you. However, I would also suggest that they would have frowned upon radical homeschooling as well. Since you do not agree with radical homeschooling, I think we are on the same page here.
Click to expand...


And I want to say that many of the magisterial Reformers would have been okay with government using money to fund public projects like education.


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> But there is no "education which fits them for life on the basis of Christian values" in the public schools. Where do you send your children?



My wife is able and willing to home school, so that has been the option we have taken.


----------



## Mushroom

Baroque Norseman said:


> I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.


Is that Argumentum Ad Hominem of the abusive subcategory, or is it a Dicto Simpliciter form of logical fallacy, Teacher?


----------



## RamistThomist

Mushroom said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Argumentum Ad Hominem of the abusive subcategory, or is it a Dicto Simpliciter form of logical fallacy, Teacher?
Click to expand...


It is more of a tu quo que fallacy. I brought it up because one of the posters made the sweeping argument about public school morality. I pointed out that this sword cuts both ways.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Baroque Norseman said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Argumentum Ad Hominem of the abusive subcategory, or is it a Dicto Simpliciter form of logical fallacy, Teacher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more of a tu quo que fallacy. I brought it up because one of the posters made the sweeping argument about public school morality. I pointed out that this sword cuts both ways.
Click to expand...


It is hardly the same thing is it? Pointing out the obvious about public schools today (as state institutions, not speaking of any individual teacher) and the agenda they are pushing is not at all the same thing as talking about the individual sins of people who happen to home educate their children.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of two major home school advocates who were sexually preying upon young women.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Argumentum Ad Hominem of the abusive subcategory, or is it a Dicto Simpliciter form of logical fallacy, Teacher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more of a tu quo que fallacy. I brought it up because one of the posters made the sweeping argument about public school morality. I pointed out that this sword cuts both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is hardly the same thing is it? Pointing out the obvious about public schools today (as state institutions, not speaking of any individual teacher) and the agenda they are pushing is not at all the same thing as talking about the individual sins of people who happen to home educate their children.
Click to expand...


You are begging the question (with words like "obviously") and speaking in broad generalities, which we have already shown to be problematic. Then when real problems are pointed out in the homeschool community (and I plan to homeschool, For what it's worth), I'm told that is a fallacy and bringing up the sins of others. This is special-pleading with a vengeance.


----------



## Hemustincrease

a mere housewife said:


> It might also be helpful to bear in mind that public schools are largely run by civilians with a variety of beliefs: they are not going to be comprehensively effective at inculcating any particular agenda,



On the contrary, they are incredibly successful at delivering their chosen agenda, despite the different beliefs of teachers! Any belief contrary to humanism has to be subordinate, to the point of it being silenced during the school day. 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom/knowledge. Any public school teacher who taught their discipline from that foundation would be quickly out of a job.


----------



## stephen2

> I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature. The problem is that education, along with many other western institutions, have been essentially built on Christian presuppositions and principles, and present day secular education is actively and consciously seeking to shed its "Christian" presuppositions and principles, thus making them actively and consciously non-Christian. These institutions are not simply non-Christian by some "natural" or "common" default setting. They are non-Christian by choice and effort. This is what makes them inimical to Christian values and gives rise to the desire for Christian alternatives insofar as Christians seek to live according to their values.



Matthew could you help me understand what you mean by,


> I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature.



Also you said,


> They are non-Christian by choice and effort. This is what makes them inimical to Christian values and gives rise to the desire for Christian alternatives insofar as Christians seek to live according to their values



Historically this is not so - at least if we take the debate back to the 19th century US. When men like Dabney opposed state run schools they were not (at the time) combatting a secular system anything like our own. They stood against the notion of a secular state run form of education for the same reasons (as far as I can tell) that Jo in this thread is opposing them.

First, there is no Biblical ground for turning children over to the state to be educated. That is (everywhere in Scripture!) the parental responsiblity.

Second, there is no such thing as neutral education. 

Third, if neutral education were even possible it wouldn't be desirable. Children should not just be learing math by itself as some neutral 'thing'. They should be learning that God made it and what it reveals about God.

There may be a recent home school movement but there really isn't anything new about it. Proponents are saying today what has been largely forgotten for the last 150 years, and which are fathers knew very well.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not in any ‘circles’. I am simply a mother who loves the Lord, loves His Word and hates every false way. I haven’t chosen to home educate my children because I’ve been brainwashed by some ‘circle’ of Van Tillians (do they have three heads?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Every false way_ does not merely refer to the current condition of public schooling; if you hate every false way then consistency demands that you must be equally (if not more) opposed to either heretical teaching among homeschoolers and to any dogma which would make homeschooling an absolute in all ages and places - which is a violation of our Christian liberty. But since you stated earlier in the thread that you were not advocating the extremist form of homeschooling espoused by some, then I do not see how we disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Puritans and Reformers would consider it utter madness to do what the majority of Christian parents do today. They would think we had all lost our heads (or grown two more).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, I would agree with you. However, I would also suggest that they would have frowned upon radical homeschooling as well. Since you do not agree with radical homeschooling, I think we are on the same page here.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think we probably are on the same page for the most part. I’m rather glad about that. Good to keep the waters between Ireland and England smooth. 

I’m not quite sure where you are headed with the heretical home schoolers though. If we desire true liberty, then there must be the liberty for people to teach their own children heresy as well as for us to teach our children truth. (No doubt many state schooled children are taught heresy when they get home from school, but what has that to do with me?)

I do agree that home education should not be made some kind of absolute rule in every age and place. 
That said, I personally do not believe that it demonstrates wisdom for believers to support publicly funded education, whether good, bad or indifferent, for the simple reason that it will sooner or later go very, very bad and as we can see today, many will then choose to stay in the mess and try to reform that which cannot be reformed whilst their children are all the while suffering substantial loss. It would seem far wiser to me (if communal schooling is desired) for the church to undertake the education of her own children and to finance that herself. Public funding comes with far too many strings which are attached to those who most certainly do not have God’s glory in mind or the best for His believing community. 

When the state is given the responsibility for the education of the next generation, where else can it end but in tyranny?


----------



## a mere housewife

Jo, you are spunky lady doing a difficult job with an admirable love for your children and I cherish what I know of you. 

Wisdom relates far more specifically to the doctrine of Christ, even in that verse. The church is the institution that is commissioned to teach us that wisdom. And the church's commission is not to teach geometry.

I believe the teachers feel largely helpless against the home situations, the peer pressures, and the chaos of the system itself to do more than try to inspire the brighter or more receptive kids. In some systems, they will be able to do that with a more open witness -- but even in other lines of work, we can't begin for instance, answering phones at an office with 'Greetings in the name of the Lord.' We would quickly be fired. Yet our belief in God gives us a hope in all we do. One public school teacher I know tried to provoke questions about his faith. He was not allowed to initiate conversation about it but was allowed to answer questions. I won't share your uncharitable assessment of him and others I know (without even knowing their situations).

I don't understand the open hostility to government here and elsewhere. It is not a NT attitude -- though their govt. was every bit as anti-Christ as ours. Neither do I understand where this idea of public schools as some vast efficient machine with a unified force of teachers effectually promoting the agenda of the govt comes from. It's like reading science fiction. Look at the many neighborhoods where children are going to school and learning nothing. If the govt's agenda is to be largely ignored, it's working brilliantly.

You have far more comprehensive control over your childrens' environment than a teacher at any institution could. Whatever you choose to promote is going to be far more effective in that environment than anyone else's agenda could be. Best to make sure then, that when your child comes to an age of greater critical thinking skills, they have been taught to think critically of your agenda (as Paul commended the Bereans for searching out the truth of what he himself said) with a respectful and generous attitude (as we ought to exercise towards all those in authority over us, like govt), without completely rejecting all that you have said out of hand when they inevitably recognise that your own agenda is also deeply fallible -- that it will inevitably fail in areas to reflect the true teaching of Scripture or the realities of the world around them.

None of this negates what I said in my first paragraph. I pray God will give you the blessing of your labors in your children. I won't go on arguing to no purpose here.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Baroque Norseman said:


> Then when real problems are pointed out in the homeschool community (and I plan to homeschool, For what it's worth), I'm told that is a fallacy and bringing up the sins of others. This is special-pleading with a vengeance.



An act of infidelity on the part of a man who happened to home educate his children does not equal ‘real problems in the homeschool community’ anymore than an act of immorality on the part of the milkman would equal ‘real problems in the dairy industry’.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hemustincrease said:


> Good to keep the waters between Ireland and England smooth.



Does it help that I am a unionist?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Just a general point: keep in mind that Baptists/Voluntaryist Presbyterians and Establishmentarian Presbyterians have a fundamentally different conception of the role of the state, with the latter holding a far more positive and paternalist view of the civil government. This doctrinal difference often lies at the root of the divergence between these groups on the question of magisterial maintenance of education.

This point is a bit , but I got the impression from Daniel Walker Howe's excellent book _What hath God wrought: the transformation of American, 1815-1848_ (OUP) that the Founding Fathers of the United States did not oppose the civil government funding education, though some/many of them argued that it was not the job of the federal government. Did the Voluntary Presbyterians initially adopt a similar position?


----------



## Hemustincrease

a mere housewife said:


> I won't share your uncharitable assessment of him and others I know (without even knowing their situations).



What uncharitable assessment of him? 




a mere housewife said:


> I don't understand the open hostility to government here and elsewhere. It is not a NT attitude -- though their govt. was every bit as anti-Christ as ours. Neither do I understand where this idea of public schools as some vast efficient machine with a unified force of teachers effectually promoting the agenda of the govt comes from. It's like reading science fiction.



I am not hostile to God ordained government, but neither will I support that (humanism) which opposes (publicly and brazenly) Christ and the truth found in Scripture. 

Have you read ‘Naked Communist’? Virtually every single goal they (humanists/communists) wrote down 60 some years ago has been achieved. More than that, is has been achieved without any resistance at all (or so little as not to be of any importance). Public schools have been the primary means (or certainly one of them, along with media etc) of achieving these things. 

I’ll share some of the goals. The book they are found in, was first published in 1958

Goal 17: Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propoganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teacher’s associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Goal 26: Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy”.
Goal 28: Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state’
Goal 32: Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of culture-education, social agencies,welfare programs, mental health clinics.
Goal 40: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Goal 41: Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudice, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressing influence of parents.

There are many other books which detail the beliefs and goals and achievements of communists (aka progressives) past and present of course, but this one certainly puts it in plain words. 


a mere housewife said:


> Best to make sure then, that when your child comes to an age of greater critical thinking skills, they have been taught to think critically of your agenda (as Paul commended the Bereans for searching out the truth of what he himself said) with a respectful and generous attitude (as we ought to exercise towards all those in authority over us, like govt), without completely rejecting all that you have said out of hand when they inevitably recognise that your own agenda is also deeply fallible -- that it will inevitably fail in areas to reflect the true teaching of Scripture or the realities of the world around them.



My primary goal in the educating of my children (after urging them to Christ) is that they think for themselves. That they never become people who easily fall prey to deception. I finished reading Animal Farm last night and was discussing it with my children today. Part of that discussion included (what is a very frequent exhortation in this family) urging them to check everything against Scripture. Whether it comes from me as their mother, their Pastor, their neighbor, the government or whomever else. They must hold Scripture as their only rule, as the only absolute truth and be always on guard against deception both in and outside of the church (and family). My children are frequently publicly praised for their respect and obedience towards authority, whether towards myself or others and that is how it should be, but never do I want them to confuse proper Godward subjection to human authority with a supporting/partaking in that which is evil.

I appreciate your post Heidi and hope you won’t read my strength of opinion on this subject as a lack of Christian charity. It can be a fine line to walk but just as I don’t wish to forsake love I just as surely don’t wish to sacrifice truth.


----------



## Miss Marple

While individuals in the school system may be fine people, the actual agenda and activities by the teachers' unions are not.

I had a dear Aunt who had a career teaching in public schools, a fine and dedicated Christian lady. A good friend got his master's and entered the public school system as a principal, and he was a solid believer. I knew a man who had a career in the LA public schools who claimed he (illegally, I suppose), gave the gospel to every class. I think it is a great thing for a Christian adult to enter the system, avoid membership in those unions, and bless and teach the kids in the schools as best they can. I don't mean to undercut anyone doing that.

However, in the U.S. in this day and age, I have not observed, experienced, or heard of dedicatedly 'neutral' teachers. Anti-Christian thought is presupposed if Biblical beliefs are not attacked. If a parent thinks that is the best thing for their children; perceives of the threat as small or nonexistent; considers their children to be a type of missionary; or simply has no other choice due to circumstances and compulsory education laws, well, you do the best you can I suppose.

An example from my 6th grade science class: Mr. Fullerton, a kind and charismatic science teacher, taught us about the beginning of the universe. He taught the Big Bang and several variations upon it. After a week or two of learning this, we were asked to write an in-class essay as to which version we believed.

Creation was not mentioned or offered. Just variations on the Big Bang.

As a little atheist myself, I was surprised when a young man raised his hand and said, "Some of us believe God created the earth."

That could have ended badly. Mr. Fullerton could have mocked. But he kindly said, if that is what you believe, then write on that.

Good points: Mr. Fullerton was kind. The boy was bold. The atheist (me) was impressed that someone in this day and age could actually believe that.

Bad points: We were taught evolution as fact. The teacher could have been mean and really humiliated that kid. He was marginalized and made to feel like the oddball. I could not have written a paper credibly on anything other than evolutionary theory, as I had learned no alternate. No consideration was given by the teacher that others (whether Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or for that matter American Indians) might have a different belief.

This was in the 1970s, and it was in Silicon Valley. In 2013 in San Francisco, well, all my evidence is anecdotal, but it's bad out there.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

stephen2 said:


> There may be a recent home school movement but there really isn't anything new about it. Proponents are saying today what has been largely forgotten for the last 150 years, and which are fathers knew very well.



That depends on what you mean by _homeschooling_. It is new in one sense (with respect to attitude) but old in another sense (as soon as a child is born he is being taught by his parents). As the term is normally used (and I've been around homeschoolers--and I homeschool--for almost 20 years) it was not as common as you may think. See my chapters on Christian Education in Uniting Church and Family.

As to what these people have been saying, I am not sure what you are referring to: the importance of family worship? That would be true. The requirement of homeschooling as over and against Christian schooling? That would be false.

I'll deal with the Dabney assertion shortly.

thanks,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Reformed Covenanter said:


> This point is a bit , but I got the impression from Daniel Walker Howe's excellent book What hath God wrought: the transformation of American, 1815-1848 (OUP) that the Founding Fathers of the United States did not oppose the civil government funding education, though some/many of them argued that it was not the job of the federal government. Did the Voluntary Presbyterians initially adopt a similar position?



In the writings and speeches about the education crisis in Presbyterianism of the 1840s, I have run across an assumed stance that this was acceptable. It is even explicit at times. Of note: many of the Presbyterians were in favor of the soon-to-be parochial school system while Breckenridge and Thornwell (and others) were against it and tended to favor the local and/or state schools systems. See Thornwell's letter here.

"My mind has rather leaned to the side of State education but I have difficulties. Let me hear from you soon and do not omit to say distinctly whether in case of the failure of your health you will consent to becomo a South Carolinian. The Lord bless you and keep you."


----------



## Mushroom

a mere housewife said:


> I don't understand the open hostility to government here and elsewhere. It is not a NT attitude -- though their govt. was every bit as anti-Christ as ours.


Heidi, I'm not sure that what is often presented as the NT attitude toward government is as accurate as some believe. Seeing that it was the main persecutor of the Church at the time of the Apostle's writings, one would need to bear that in mind when reading their exhortations regarding government. There were no kingdoms bearing benevolence toward the faith at the time, so the words can't mean we should have a happy, trusting attitude in its regard. John the Baptist was beheaded for vocally rebuking a King of that day for his gross immorality, an immorality that would seem rather tame when compared alongside the slaughter of 56 million babies and the promotion of mass perversion seen in the present magistrate in this one nation. The currently popular interpretation seems borne more out of cowardice and obsequity, fortified with a pinch of self-interest draped in a pretty dress called patriotism, than a consistent exegesis.

J the B had the sand to stand. A vast majority of professing Christian men seem to be bereft of that commodity, particularly if having it might jeopardize their fullness of bread. It's almost a laugh to see them curling up as pets to such a bloody master while barking alarms and protests at their brethren who might deign to publicly note that sitting in his lap tends to redden their own ears. Men of stout courage, indeed.


----------



## a mere housewife

I was struck by this verse the other day: Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” 

Jo, I apologise sincerely if I read more into your comment than was meant. You seemed to imply that a Christian would have to compromise their faith to teach in a public school. 

I hope this will not be seen as argumentative: just to suggest some other considerations in assessing the state of the public school system -- Others have also pointed out that parental nurture and involvement is a major variable in the differences from one school system to another. There are still public schools where children are encouraged to pray and where the teachers speak more openly about their faith: the parents in those systems are more religious, with more traditional values. Christian parents are increasingly less involved in the public school system and parents have increasingly simply abdicated their responsibilities (not of teaching their children math and literature: geometry was entrusted to the Greeks, but to the Jews were committed the oracles of God) but of taking their children to church, teaching them about God. The churches have majorly abdicated responsibilities (when the church is ordaining gay clergy, you can't expect the government to maintain a firm stand). Even with all the godless people being able to implement their agendas in this chaos, I think we can rest assured that the government has little ability to turn out a generation of well organised drones, as the school system stands. The government agenda from all we hear, is to tell teenagers to use condoms: that doesn't seem to be having a very powerful impact. It is often the mom's solution to tell the pregnant teenager to get an abortion. The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.

I have lived in neighborhoods where I would probably not send a child out to play (at least I would have to fight the desire to stand at the window and call them back in a few minutes) -- I would certainly not send them out all day into the schools. But I don't primarily blame the government. Orwell saw everything as fundamentally political -- even religion and morality. As Christians, we believe otherwise. We look for more profound causes: and they are often causes which reflect much more on our own souls: recognising and fighting with our own remaining sin (Duet 7), keeping a gospel focus in our own lives and in our churches, loving our neighbors even in our thoughts, submitting to our own authorities, showing children how to repent.

I am so grateful for parents who love their children and are involved in religious instruction and nurture day to day. And I deeply admire the moms who are dedicated enough to be taking on a huge extra load in homeschooling: I agree that often that is the best option a family has. The moms here who are doing that have my prayers and support. I tend to think that any honest person would have a feeling that they are doing it 'right' and others are getting it all wrong knocked away. I feel terrified when I think of how much my failures could impact a child: I recognise that my own 'agenda' is wildly full of blindspots and inadequacies. Yet in my experience, persevering in prayer, repentance and faith, steadfast love (part and parcel of religious instruction) is the best gift a parent could give, regardless of how a child is formally educated. My beloved parents have always given that to me and I am deeply, undeservedly, eternally blessed.


----------



## Hemustincrease

a mere housewife said:


> The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.



Abortion is peddled in public schools. One lady who used to work for planned parenthood (and was latterly saved) confessed that their entire goal in going into schools to give out contraceptives was _because they knew very well that girls would not use them properly_ (forget to take the pill, not use the condom etc) but would still continue to live promiscuously (as encouraged to do so by humanistic philosophy) and so would very likely end up as ‘money' for the abortion industry. They were basically ‘selling abortion’. This was all done without any parental consent and teachers who had been ‘certified’ to teach such lessons were unashamedly stating that parents ought not to expect any say in such matters. If a child asked for contraception or an abortion and their parents were against that, the child would be supported 100% to rebel against God and their parents. (They did not say they were supporting rebellion, but obviously this is what they were/are doing.) 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Depravity-History-Education-1918-2002/dp/0952993953


----------



## a mere housewife

Jo when I worked with teenage girls who did not use condom and had abortions, their families and friends were mentioned as pressuring them. Nobody talked in that connection about something they were taught at school or the influence of a teacher. My husband interviewed with a job at a pro life center and the lady who runs it told us that the most influential factor in pressuring the teenage girls they spoke with were their moms. I don't honestly see how it is possible to aggrandize the influence of the school to the extent that the family that is rebelled against (and families that are increasingly uninvolved, or have parents who are drug addicts, or abusive -- as in our old neighborhood) is nothing: and I am having trouble expressing what I was trying to above. The attitude that does aggrandise school to that extent seems to me in danger of shifting a central focus on the gospel as the real commission of the church, and the simplicity of gospel nurture as the real duty of the parent. Which probably circles the thread nicely back to the beginning.

I am sorry to have entered the discussion. I do think the Christian parents/teachers who are still involving themselves in various public school districts don't deserve to be looked down on. They are probably helping to keep those schools more decent, faith-friendly places for everyone. All the best.


----------



## kvanlaan

I don't know that a Christian who teaches in a public system is to be looked down upon, but I do think they're definitely going to need to gird up their loins and prepare for battle at every turn; they are missionaries in a hostile land, not teachers. Here in Canada, I cannot fathom believers sending their children to a public school; there may be those that are still not completely anti-religious, but I've not yet found them. They are indeed the new religious centres of learning, with clergy in the classroom - and secular humanism is the only thing taught. I have heard the same story about the abortion providers in the schools that Jo mentioned - if you watch the Gunn brothers' "Monstrous Regiment of Women" you see it there front and centre.

As for the power of the schools in childrens' lives, I can't imagine how it would escape detection. Looking at the average family, where both parents are working, everyone is out the door by 8 and no one is home until 3:30pm, and that is the kids alone (when they switch humanist agenda for the TV's godlessness). The parents are not usually back until 5 or so, and then there is homework and TV, so the average time spent with parents is an hour or so one-on-one (or less), while time spent with 'peers' and those instructing them is 6-8 hours. When every subject is steeped in humanism, sheer osmosis makes this worldview normal to them.


----------



## Hemustincrease

a mere housewife said:


> I am sorry to have entered the discussion.



I’m sorry, you’re sorry to have entered the discussion. I’m glad that you did.


----------



## MW

stephen2 said:


> Matthew could you help me understand what you mean by,
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature.
Click to expand...


Where education involves critical thinking, human development, and social integration, it is humanist by nature, whether it be Christian or secular.



stephen2 said:


> First, there is no Biblical ground for turning children over to the state to be educated. That is (everywhere in Scripture!) the parental responsiblity.


 Nobody turns children over to "the State." They are born in "the State." They are not the exclusive property of parents. Children are primarily the responsibility of their parents. Civil government also has a responsibility with regard to both parents and children.



stephen2 said:


> Second, there is no such thing as neutral education.



Obviously there is not; but when it comes to social responsibility there must be common ground on which every individual can function according to a good faith basis.



stephen2 said:


> Third, if neutral education were even possible it wouldn't be desirable. Childrena should not just be learing math by itself as some neutral 'thing'. They should be learning that God made it and what it reveals about God.



I agree. I see no reason why this could not be done by even a nominal Christian State, as was once the case.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is peddled in public schools. One lady who used to work for planned parenthood (and was latterly saved) confessed that their entire goal in going into schools to give out contraceptives was _because they knew very well that girls would not use them properly_ (forget to take the pill, not use the condom etc) but would still continue to live promiscuously (as encouraged to do so by humanistic philosophy) and so would very likely end up as ‘money' for the abortion industry. They were basically ‘selling abortion’. This was all done without any parental consent and teachers who had been ‘certified’ to teach such lessons were unashamedly stating that parents ought not to expect any say in such matters. If a child asked for contraception or an abortion and their parents were against that, the child would be supported 100% to rebel against God and their parents. (They did not say they were supporting rebellion, but obviously this is what they were/are doing.)
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Depravity-History-Education-1918-2002/dp/0952993953
Click to expand...


It's peddled in some schools, not in others. I don't necessarily work in a Christ-friendly environment, but abortion is definitely frowned upon (to put it mildly). Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

When I was in first year at high-school, a Christian man from the United States came and spoke to the pupils. In the midst of his talk about his conversion and other things, he happened to mention something about the Bible and prayer being excluded from most public schools in the United States. Even as a 12 year old I was stunned, literally stunned, that such a thing could take place in a country with so much Christian influence. Of course, it was more shocking to me as one who went to state schools were the Bible was taught in both the assemblies and in the class-room, the teachers were Christians, and the local (Protestant) clergy spoke at the assemblies and on other occasions.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Baroque Norseman said:


> Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.



Is every single school exactly the same? No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.


----------



## RamistThomist

Hemustincrease said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.
Click to expand...


Since we have not yet risen above the level of assertion, I will again assert, "No, it isn't."


----------



## Gforce9

a mere housewife said:


> Jo when I worked with teenage girls who did not use condom and had abortions, their families and friends were mentioned as pressuring them. Nobody talked in that connection about something they were taught at school or the influence of a teacher. My husband interviewed with a job at a pro life center and the lady who runs it told us that the most influential factor in pressuring the teenage girls they spoke with were their moms. I don't honestly see how it is possible to aggrandize the influence of the school to the extent that the family that is rebelled against (and families that are increasingly uninvolved, or have parents who are drug addicts, or abusive -- as in our old neighborhood) is nothing: and I am having trouble expressing what I was trying to above. The attitude that does aggrandise school to that extent seems to me in danger of shifting a central focus on the gospel as the real commission of the church, and the simplicity of gospel nurture as the real duty of the parent. Which probably circles the thread nicely back to the beginning.
> 
> I am sorry to have entered the discussion. I do think the Christian parents/teachers who are still involving themselves in various public school districts don't deserve to be looked down on. They are probably helping to keep those schools more decent, faith-friendly places for everyone. All the best.





Baroque Norseman said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is peddled in public schools. One lady who used to work for planned parenthood (and was latterly saved) confessed that their entire goal in going into schools to give out contraceptives was _because they knew very well that girls would not use them properly_ (forget to take the pill, not use the condom etc) but would still continue to live promiscuously (as encouraged to do so by humanistic philosophy) and so would very likely end up as ‘money' for the abortion industry. They were basically ‘selling abortion’. This was all done without any parental consent and teachers who had been ‘certified’ to teach such lessons were unashamedly stating that parents ought not to expect any say in such matters. If a child asked for contraception or an abortion and their parents were against that, the child would be supported 100% to rebel against God and their parents. (They did not say they were supporting rebellion, but obviously this is what they were/are doing.)
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Depravity-History-Education-1918-2002/dp/0952993953
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's peddled in some schools, not in others. I don't necessarily work in a Christ-friendly environment, but abortion is definitely frowned upon (to put it mildly). Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.
Click to expand...


Based on the residences listed in your profiles, I think your broader view may be limited. Here in the People's Republic of Illinois, this garbage is a daily occurrence. We have a school district close to here that, 15 years ago, had a class of 3rd graders being read _Heather Has Two Mommies_ or something like it, without parental consent. Another local school had kids, without parental consent, participate in a "play" featuring men with desires for one another. There is no parental notification required for the murder of babies by teenagers and school officials will (and have) carted mere children off to Indiana to have the "procedure". 
The public schools and government here are enemies of God and of the family, without shame or repentance and with sheer brazen arrogance. Does that mean every place is as bad as another? Probably not, but surveys are not available before you sign up. A non-believing, single (without children) friend of mine commented to me "Sending kids to public schools here is child abuse". Unfortunately, I tend to agree with him.......


----------



## Mushroom

Baroque Norseman said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we have not yet risen above the level of assertion, I will again assert, "No, it isn't."
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're attempting to demonstrate here, Jacob. Are you saying that public schools are not by and large given over to humanism and sexual perversion due to the fact that there exists a few that are not? Or are you trying to say that public schools are by and large friendly to Christ in spite of the fact that there are a few that aren't? Or, is it that you think it impossible and erroneously presuppositional to determine anything to be by and large true concerning public schools?


It would be easier to swallow the defenses put forth if 1) they didn't fly in the face of legal decisions, established curriculum, and what we read daily in news reports, and 2) if it weren't coming from a man whose bread is dependent upon the particular entity defended.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Mushroom said:


> It would be easier to swallow the defenses put forth if 1) they didn't fly in the face of legal decisions, established curriculum, and what we read daily in news reports, and 2) if it weren't coming from a man whose bread is dependent upon the particular entity defended.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Of course, it was more shocking to me as one who went to state schools were the Bible was taught in both the assemblies and in the class-room, the teachers were Christians, and the local (Protestant) clergy spoke at the assemblies and on other occasions.



Wow. What a different world. The version of separation of church and state in America devolved to separation of Christian morality and the state. Part of this transformation was easy because many Christian Americans were no longer comfortable with the type of integration of religion with the schools they way you had growing up. It was also the influx of non-Protestants into the common schools in the early 1800 (Roman Catholics) and then the nominal Protestants on the other hand (against "sectarian" Protestants (eg. Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) teaching their views in the schools). The only hold outs from nominal religion or anti-religion from the State are homeschoolers, private schools and parochial schools. And, today, they are mostly splintered and not cooperating much with each other.

Back to the OPC: radical homeschoolers do not help this patchwork educational environ in America. They should be open to private and parachial schools in terms of helping and encouraging each other toward Christian nurture. My five cents worth.


----------



## RamistThomist

Mushroom said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we have not yet risen above the level of assertion, I will again assert, "No, it isn't."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what you're attempting to demonstrate here, Jacob. Are you saying that public schools are not by and large given over to humanism and sexual perversion due to the fact that there exists a few that are not? Or are you trying to say that public schools are by and large friendly to Christ in spite of the fact that there are a few that aren't? Or, is it that you think it impossible and erroneously presuppositional to determine anything to be by and large true concerning public schools?
> 
> 
> It would be easier to swallow the defenses put forth if 1) they didn't fly in the face of legal decisions, established curriculum, and what we read daily in news reports, and 2) if it weren't coming from a man whose bread is dependent upon the particular entity defended.
Click to expand...


I am saying it is different in different areas. That's all.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]
Thread closed. Once the door is opened to attributing people's positions to their defects or situations, there is no logical reason not to do that to everyone. So if you would like to say that I am closing this thread because I was once run over by a bicycle, I can live with that; but in fairness you should realize that on that basis, your position as to why I'm closing the thread is itself caused by some trauma of your own. At that point, argument essentially becomes impossible, for every reason can be dismissed with "Well of course X would say or do Y." 
[/Moderator]


----------

