Compulsory Education

[jaybird0827]

Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the education of those under his jurisdiction?

If you reply, please elaborate.

I think it's consistent with scripture because subjects must be instructed as to what is lawful.

 

[jaybird0827]

I can delete this message if it's beyond the bounds, but should it depend on if the Civil Magistrate acknowledges the rights of King Jesus or not?

See the Confession of Faith (Westminster), ch. XXIII, especially section IV.

 

[jaybird0827]

Josh,

Thanks for posting the actual text of WCF 23:4. It would help if there could be away to keep that much intact.

The question is about "compulsory education".

"Compulsory education" is not synonymous as "compulsory attendance in state schools."

I don't want to say too much because I'm trying to focus on the principle of education itself. Hope that helps.

 

[Pergamum]

why would you delete the posts?

 

[jaybird0827]

Why would a compulsory education law be unscriptural (or against natural law, for that matter)?

Why would that be a wicked law?

Anyone?

 

[satz]

Why would a compulsory education law be unscriptural (or against natural law, for that matter)?

Why would that be a wicked law?

Anyone?

I see no reason why it would be either unscriptural or wicked.

(Although because of the type of governments we have, the practical application might end up that way)

Someone on another thread used the phrase 'Regulative Principle of Government'. The idea that the government needs a specific allowance from scripture for whatever it does or however it uses its authority almost seems to be assumed in much of the political discussion on the PB, but I see no warrant for taking such a view in the bible.

Laws may be made that are harsh, overbearing and intrusive and the one in authority will answer to God for that, but that does not give the ones under authority the right to declare those laws as illegitimate.

If we are going to treat government authority this way, I see no bible reason to not do the same with the authority of husbands over wives or parents over children. Yet no one I know would say wives of children have the right to ask their husbands/parents to show them specific biblical warrant for each and every single way they exercise their authority.

 

[KMK]

I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.

In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?

 

[jaybird0827]

Hmm...

Out of 9 people who voted false only one even bothered to tell why they think so.

So far this results of this poll confirm what I suspected all along.

 

[bob]

This is a good question that I am not sure how to answer. I am trying mull over in my mind what the Bible requires in regard to education. Is the magistrate requiring a specific criteria in mandating education or simply insisting that children be taught an undefined something?

Would we strike a difference in biblical obedience between the man who educates his children by teaching them Latin, Greek, and arithemetic along with biblical training and the man who ignored most of the classical subjects, but taught his children his trade or craft along with sound biblical training?

 

[lwadkins]

The Magistrate is now promulgating a system whose teachings are antiethical to God's word, so in this time and place it should be resisted. The Magistrate has not the right to make law that opposes God's law, and though the mandate to attend does not directly oppose God's law, the nature of the system causes the law, in essence, to be anti-biblical.

 

[Neopatriarch]

I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.

In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?

Is this a judicial law or moral law that the state should enforce?

 

[Coram Deo]

I chose False... Why?

I believe the civil government is overstepping it's sphere of authority that has been regulated out to the sphere of the family... It is not the governments job to train our children, it is our responsibility to train our children.

"Give instruction to a youth about his way, Even when he is old he turneth not from it." Proverbs 22:6 Young's Literal Translation

In other words we are told by the Spirit of God is for the Parents to "Give instruction to the youth", Train up a child... This is everything from behavioral to regular Reading/Writing/Math education. So it is not the governments job nor their authority to train up our children. They are removing authority from one sphere of government to another sphere of government which is not permitted.

Some will try to use the modal of walk-along, talk-along, primarily non-delegable, Education/discipleship-based training between parents and children (Deuteronomy 6) for the argument but I believe that Deuteronomy 6 is more narrow then broader education.. I believe it is referring to Spiritual Education because it mentioned the Laws and Commandments of God.. So I can't really use Deuteronomy 6 as a proof text like Sproul Jr. Doug Phillips and others have done..

But clearly Proverbs 22:6 shows that the sphere of education resides within the sphere of the Parents and not the government....

 

[KMK]

I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.

In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?

Is this a judicial law or moral law that the state should enforce?

I don't think it matters since I am talking only about the 'general equity' of God's Law.

Some seem to be missing the main point of the OP. The question is not about who should do the educating, but should the magistrate demand that children get educated somehow. To me the answer is obvious.

 

[Herald]

I wonder how the Puritans viewed Proverbs in relation to doctrine. It is been my experience that Proverbs is not a book that is doctrinally rich and should not be used for that purpose. Thoughts?

 

[Coram Deo]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

Unless Proverbs is uninspired and not written by the inspiration of God otherwise it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction...

I wonder how the Puritans viewed Proverbs in relation to doctrine. It is been my experience that Proverbs is not a book that is doctrinally rich and should not be used for that purpose. Thoughts?

 

[Herald]

Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the education of those under his jurisdiction?

If you reply, please elaborate.

I think it's consistent with scripture because subjects must be instructed as to what is lawful.

Jay,

I think it depends on what is being taught. If the state requires all new drivers to attend a mandatory drivers education class, I wouldn't have any issue with the requirement. Driving is a technical skill that needs to be taught by a competent teacher. How about a child who has a learning disorder that transcends the parents ability to teach effectively? Can the parent use outside resources to bridge that gap? I believe so. These choices come under the umbrella of the parents authority in educating their child. It is the parents ultimate responsibility and he can make the decision to use or not to use resources that help in education. Ultimately the parent is accountable to God.

Now, what if the magistrate requires a child to be exposed to an ungodly environment? To be more specific, what does a parent do if the magistrate says, "Your child will learn about alternative lifestyles."? This is not just a matter of reading, writing and arithmetic. Todays public schools consider social agendas to be just as important as 1+1=2. Now, the Christian who says, "Parents must submit to the magistrate and send their children to school" may say this falls under the auspices of persecution; that they and their children are being persecuted for their faith and must endure it. Hogwash. The magistrate, In my humble opinion, has gone beyond the bounds of his mandate and parents have the responsibility to protect their children. If the magistrate threatens to remove the children from the home, there are options available to parents. Christian schools can be utilized. Churches may recognize the dire nature of the courts ruling and can establish recognized schools if the ruling is not overturned. There is always the possibility of moving out of state. Yes, it may impact careers and family but I believe the situation is that critical. Doing the right thing is not always easy. At times is the most difficult option available.

 

[Herald]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

Unless Proverbs is uninspired and not written by the inspiration of God otherwise it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction...

I wonder how the Puritans viewed Proverbs in relation to doctrine. It is been my experience that Proverbs is not a book that is doctrinally rich and should not be used for that purpose. Thoughts?

Michael, I am not doubting the inspiration of scripture. I have heard it taught that two books, Job and Proverbs, are not ideal books for teaching doctrine. To be honest, it's been a long time since that has been taught to me. I wonder if anyone else has heard of this?

 

[Davidius]

I voted "false," but I suppose I could change my answer depending on your definition of education. The verses I've used seen in support of education look like they don't go further than necessitating training in religious doctrine. A child can be brought up "in the fear and admonition of the Lord" without knowing mathematics or history. Are you saying that the government should be able to enforce compulsory education in these kinds of subjects? If so, then this is where I disagree. I think any sort of required curriculum is wrong.

 

[Civbert]

Reading this question very strictly, I would say yes.

I think compulsory education laws can be biblical. I don't know if any laws on the books are biblical (or can be at this time), but I think it's possible. A State does have a natural interest in the education of it's citizens, and may therefor compel them to be educated by what-ever information or standard they think is best. This might include required attendance at specific State controlled institutions. And so as long as the State did not try to teach something contrary to Christian doctrine, I don't see how it would be necessarily unbiblical.

But the answer (True) to the question does not imply that the State can deny the parents the right to educate their own children in addition to the State. That would be unconstitutional and unbiblical. Any law restricting the rights of a parent to educate their own children would require an amendment to state or U.S. Constitutions; and would be contrary to our Christian duty to educate our children in the ways of the Lord.

I don't think such compulsory education laws are should be considered constitutional in most states in the U.S. I think we have a constitutional right to educate our children in place of State education, unless the State specifically takes that right away. In other words, we still have the right to keep our children out of the State education system. And since, most public education institutions teach some views that are antithetical to Christianity, then parents have a biblical/moral right to educate their children in the place of the State.

 

[Civbert]

My short answer would be: "Yes, they can be biblical, but they are a bad idea".

 

[KMK]

My short answer would be: "Yes, they can be biblical, but they are a bad idea".

If they are biblical, how can they be a bad idea?

 

[Herald]

Ken, because the magistrate in this situation displays every evidence of being unrighteous, therefore their decisions will be equally unrighteous. I can't answer for Anthony, but that is why I would consider it a bad idea.

 

[Civbert]

My short answer would be: "Yes, they can be biblical, but they are a bad idea".

If they are biblical, how can they be a bad idea?

Well, specifically, I said they can be, not that they are. I assumed the "are" in the question was looking at a hypothetical possible law, not the laws on the books at present. There are a lot of things within the biblical scope of the civil magistrate that they can get wrong. Just because the magistrate is acting within a biblical scope, does not mean it is done in the most biblical manner.

 

[k.seymore]

"Give instruction to a youth about his way, Even when he is old he turneth not from it." Proverbs 22:6 Young's Literal Translation

So you're actually saying that a verse which tells people to give instruction to youths is actually forbidding certain people from giving instruction to youths!? Perhaps the verse means the opposite of what you are saying. Perhaps it is–and forgive me if I am misreading it–giving biblical warrant for people teaching youths.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.

If ALL of these requirements are not met, then there is insufficient basis for the law. And even if they are met, a law may still be unwise.

It is arguable that "requiring" education is not enforceable in a non-tyrannical way. Furthermore, "required" for whom and for how long? Should adults over 18 be "required" to be educated on the thousands of new laws, regulations, and court interpretations (which amount to countless additions to the statues) promulgated each and every year?

After all, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Who will conduct these classes, and who will pay for them, and is it right to demand the time from the populace, taken out of their work/sleep/maintenance/leisure? In the past few years, we have seen the legal principle of mens rea (L., guilty mind), or intent to break the law as a necessary part of prosecution, effectively removed from the state's burden. Add mandatory sentencing guidelines, and you have a recipe for inefficient, arbitrary totalitarianism.

If we are only talking about "children's education" here, then (leaving aside the question of warrant)-- 1) how will the law be enforced, by whom, which armed agency as last resort? and 2) what penalty? Will children be taken from the parents? Will the parents be fined? How many times? Will one be jailed? Will both?

If these kinds of questions cannot be answered, then no law should be enacted. I think the Magistrate has the duty (assigned by its own Higher Authority) to encourage the education of its citizens, both intellectually and morally. What I am noting is that the "civil magistrate" has limits as to what it is able to do--at least, that is what subordinate authority realizes. Our present state powers do not recognize limits. A magistrate under Authority is content with knowing he has discharged his duty, even if he has stopped short of totalitarian measures. Laws, and the criminalization of every bad behavior, will not bring about greater exhibitions of good behavior.

I find it difficult to say "Since I, personally, cannot think of a justified scenario for such a law, therefore no such law can be enacted." However, at present I think it very unwise.

 

[k.seymore]

I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.

In other words, no laws using the format of the decalogue?

 

[KMK]

I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.

If ALL of these requirements are not met, then there is insufficient basis for the law. And even if they are met, a law may still be unwise.

It is arguable that "requiring" education is not enforceable in a non-tyrannical way. Furthermore, "required" for whom and for how long? Should adults over 18 be "required" to be educated on the thousands of new laws, regulations, and court interpretations (which amount to countless additions to the statues) promulgated each and every year?

After all, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Who will conduct these classes, and who will pay for them, and is it right to demand the time from the populace, taken out of their work/sleep/maintenance/leisure? In the past few years, we have seen the legal principle of mens rea (L., guilty mind), or intent to break the law as a necessary part of prosecution, effectively removed from the state's burden. Add mandatory sentencing guidelines, and you have a recipe for inefficient, arbitrary totalitarianism.

If we are only talking about "children's education" here, then (leaving aside the question of warrant)-- 1) how will the law be enforced, by whom, which armed agency as last resort? and 2) what penalty? Will children be taken from the parents? Will the parents be fined? How many times? Will one be jailed? Will both?

If these kinds of questions cannot be answered, then no law should be enacted. I think the Magistrate has the duty (assigned by its own Higher Authority) to encourage the education of its citizens, both intellectually and morally. What I am noting is that the "civil magistrate" has limits as to what it is able to do--at least, that is what subordinate authority realizes. Our present state powers do not recognize limits. A magistrate under Authority is content with knowing he has discharged his duty, even if he has stopped short of totalitarian measures. Laws, and the criminalization of every bad behavior, will not bring about greater exhibitions of good behavior.

I find it difficult to say "Since I, personally, cannot think of a justified scenario for such a law, therefore no such law can be enacted." However, at present I think it very unwise.

Excellent post, Bruce! You really make me think.

One question: "Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the feeding and clothing of those under his jurisdiction?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Excellent post, Bruce! You really make me think.

One question: "Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the feeding and clothing of those under his jurisdiction?

If the "form of government" is paternalistic then, I suppose that all the paternal duties would fall to them as well.

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is an "ideal" form of government. If people are none other than "wards of the state" then they must be fed, clothed, housed, schooled, pampered, and etc. by the state.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation.

In other words, no laws using the format of the decalogue?

I don't understand the question. The Law of Moses has: 1) warrant, 2) enforcement (both earthly and heavenly), and 3) explicit, spelled out penalties for violation, as well as the implicit. We are speaking here in the thread of earthly laws, which should direct us at least implicitly to find all the parts I mentioned.

The Moral Law (the Decalogue) all by itself has 1) warrant, 2) enforcement (by God the King), and 3) penalty for violation (death, essentially the CoW), when it is considered under the first and second uses.

 

[Christusregnat]

Howdy y'all,

The question was:

"Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the education of those under his jurisdiction?

If you reply, please elaborate.:

Paul informs us in the following passage about the lawful duties of magistrates:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of [or, in Greek under] God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:1-5

From this we see that the powers that be are 1) God’s deacon, 2) To terrorize evil works, 3) Not to terrorize good works 4) To use the sword to enforce God’s laws.

So, does a servant make up his own rules? Does a deacon decide which laws he wants to enforce, and which are outmoded? Is the servant the source of law, or the administrator of the law? Clearly, Paul is slapping the Roman Caesars in the face with these words, since he preached another King, one Jesus, and called Nero a servant of this Jesus. Nero thought he was god walking in the earth; Paul says, NOPE, you’re a mere servant of the “King of Kings”.

Now, does God anywhere grant jurisdiction for the instruction of children to the judges and magistrates? I’m at a loss to recall where He does so. Rather, God commands fathers and mothers to educate their children:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7 (see also the book of Proverbs)

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Ephesians 6:4 (cf. parallel in Collosians)

If it can be demonstrated that God commands the magistrate to teach anyone anything except for the civil laws (and he’s supposed to teach HIMSELF this Deut 17:18), I would concede the point. However, as it stands, God commands the instruction of children to be done by the fathers, and gives the religious instruction to be supplemented by the church (as implied by the Epistles, by Nehemiah 8:1-3, etc.).

Also, to an earlier point, no sanction is given to the magistrate to enforce against derelict parents. In other words, no Nazi-like “you’d better educate your kinds, or we’ll charge you fines”.

As to the broader question of jurisdictions and venues, the church has a certain sphere, the state a different one, and the family a third. If we confound the jurisdictions, we end up with some very strange (Communistic?) theories. For instance, in Khalifornia, the state thinks that it owns our children. Therefore, it wants to penalize us for not sending our children to the Government schkools to have them “learn to be free” (can you say double-speak?). Anywho, the point being, the state is here transgressing the boundaries set by God, and is therefore no longer a servant of God, but a tyrant. Anyone who says otherwise would have to allow Plato’s argument that women should be held in common, and that the State has the rights of the family over children.
Think of the church exercising capital punishment; why is that so abhorrant? The reason it is so is that God has not given the church that jurisdiction. Nor has He given the state the jurisdiction of education.

The Reformed faith demands resistance to tyrannical authority. This is not merely theoretically true (consider Rutherford’s Lex, Rex, and Beza’s work on resisting tyrants, “The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects”), but is witnessed to by the Scots Worthies, by the Magdeburg Confession, by the Dutch Declaration of Independence, by the Puritan Justification for taking up arms (against their “lawful king”, Charles 1), by the Huguenot Declaration of Independence, by Luther’s refusal to obey Charles V, by the American Declaration of Independence, etc. Many of these may be found here: Welcome to City on a Hill

Thus, when the state tells us that our children belong to them to be educated, or when they make laws that fall outside the bounds of their jurisdiction, we are to not yield for one moment.

Cheers,