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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 :offtopic:, 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 :offtopic:, 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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. ;)


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).
 
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.
 
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?

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

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.


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.


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."

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.
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."
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
"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,
 
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.
 
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.


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. :encourage:
 
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.


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. :encourage:

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.
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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?

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.

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.
 
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top