Home > Brandenburg, Education > Education: State, Church, or Home? (part two)

Education: State, Church, or Home? (part two)

April 18, 2007

Should church schools exist? Parents teaching their own children is the most fundamental form of education. The parents are responsible to train their children (Ephesians 6:1-4). Some home schoolers argue that home-schooling is the only legitimate Scriptural way of teaching. I don’t think so. Here’s why.

First, the disciples were taught by someone other than their parents. You say, “They’re adults.”  Fine, but obviously home-schooling isn’t the only way.

Second, Paul authorized the tutor with his illustration. The schoolmaster in Galatians 3, 4 isn’t a parent. The parent used someone else to teach his child. In the history of education, godly people often have done it this way. In colonial America, wealthier families hired tutors, and often several families hired a teacher for an “old-field school,” thus named because it was in an old field where the soil was too depleted to support crops.  In the early 1800s, education was the responsibility of parents, but they most often hired someone else to teach their children.

Third, using teachers recognizes the weaknesses one has. The Holy Spirit divided severally as He would (1 Corinthians 12:11), meaning that no one person had all that he needed to manifest the body of Christ. It doesn’t take a village, but it does take a body. God equips the church with diversity. A parent should take advantage of the diversity.

Fourth, not everyone can do as good as other parents at teaching his own children. We are to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2). By using other body parts, everyone can get a better education. If you as a parent want your child to go further, you should go ahead. Help them go further. Help them learn things not taught in the church school. However, by supporting the church school, you are helping others come along as fast as your children might. We aren’t against capitalism, but it is still a flawed system. We want young people to compete and do their best, but we want everyone to come along the path. The goal of the Christian life isn’t getting there first, but getting there and bringing other people with you. That’s how a church school can help more people do a better job.

I think there are other good arguments for church schools, but let’s cogitate on these for awhile and see if they hold water. Parents should take responsibility, but they should support the church and everyone in the church, attempting to leave no one behind.

State Education

The school district in which I live was the first in the history of the U. S. ever to go bankrupt. When it did, parents were saying, “They can’t do this to us.” You can see how that they had become dependents of the state. Many think the state owes them an education. However, God nowhere gives the state the authority to educate children. The church can teach the truth. Parents have authority over their children. The state has neither of these. I think the government wants authority over your children. They either think they have the truth or that no one, including them, has the truth. Without the authority or the responsibility, the state is bound for failure.

A few years ago, we actually voted on school vouchers in the state of California. Not that we would have received any voucher money, but I voted for it. I thought and still think it is a no-brainer. Early in the campaign, a large majority of citizens polled said that they supported vouchers. The teachers union began using members’ dues to buy deceptive television ads that fooled the public in California. Vouchers lost. Literally, people voted not to be able to send their children to the school of their choice. They wanted to keep the state education system alive. I want it to die, the sooner the better. Education would be so much more efficient and so much better for children if the public school would disappear.

If it doesn’t, public education isn’t ordained by God, so it will fail. I’m not saying that some kids may not turn out to be axe murderers. They may even be decent, but it won’t primarily be because of the system. It will mainly be because of parents who took responsibility. It could be because a certain teacher really did work hard at it. I don’t recommend the public schools for many Scriptural reasons. I think you know what they are (Psalm 1; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Ephesians 5:11). The state has an agenda that I don’t want my children exposed to.

Is the public school wrong? I don’t think so. If that were the case, then Daniel stopped short when he rejected the diet and drink of the king. Daniel took his stand on conviction from Scripture. Scripture did not prohibit attending Babylonian schools, or he should not have even gone to class, let alone said “no” to the meat and wine the king offered him. Moses and Daniel went to public school. They drew the line at practice. They would not align themselves with their state education.

Of course, Moses and Daniel didn’t have a choice. If you do, then you should choose a church or home school. Why send your kids to a school where you are hoping that they won’t be influenced? I thought we were supposed to hope for the influence of a teacher and a school. Not being influenced defeats the very purpose of education. When you have the choice, you should do your best for your children. Public school is definitely not that.

(to be continued. . . . I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of home schools versus church schools)

Advertisements
Categories: Brandenburg, Education
  1. April 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Brother Kent,

    I agree with you completely about state schools. I also believe they have an agenda, and our kids are the pawns.

    May I comment on a couple of illustrations you used in the early part of your post? The argument about teaching the Disciples is probably more suited for a “Bible College” argument than a “church-school” one. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Secondly, because Paul used the example of a schoolmaster in Galatians is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement. He also quoted heathen poets as well in the Scriptures. Was he endorsing them?

    By the way, you have made some very good arguments for the helping of each in the church. You are making me think about this. Thanks for your post.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: