Looks like a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) pastor has introduced a resolution to his denomination to:
"remove their children from public schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education."
They join the Baptists in doing so. With the growing popularity of home schooling (great wikipedia link) and charter schools, it looks like more conservatives are pulling their kids out of the schools to give them a better education. As of 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics reported over a million students in home schools.
Looks like the hyper-secularization of our schools and the growing religious sentiment in our country are causing the split between secular and sacred to widen. It’s probably too bad for all of us. But if secularists want God out of society, they will also spur the creation and growth of the conservative countercultures.
The modern homeschooling movement, with its roots in early America before the public eduacation system begain was bolstered by hippies in the 60’s, and joined by the Christian right in the last couple of decades, is growing. There’s even a National African-American Homeschoolers Alliance, and HSAs in about every state.
Yes, pull your kids from public schools. Protect them from demonic Muslims, Christ-hating Jews, and every other type of diversity that exists in the world. Protect them from the world's suggestions, ideas, hints and novelties. Do everything you can to teach them that Christ is the only thing going. Don't encourage in them anything intellectual, like exploration. Prevent them from knowing that there are ideas other than Christ's. Teach them to hate gays.
Yes, the "freedom" of home-schooling.
Seeker,
Blaming "secularists" for the divide in America is positively absurd. Christians who claim that anything that doesn't go their way is anti-Christian hatred, while refusing to allow for anything that remotely resembles a diversity of opinion, is dividing society.
Sam,
The reason you are seeing different Christian denominations encouraging families to pull their children out of public schools has nothing to do with Muslims, Jews, or any of the other reasons that you mentioned.
Christians believe that the Bible is God's specific instruction to them about how they should live their lives. The Bible is very specific that the education of children is the responsibility of the parents (see Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:18-21; Psalm 78;1-7; Psalm 127:3; Proverbs 22:6; Malachi 2:13-16; Ephesians 6:4).
In addition, the Bible says that the education of children should be based on God's absolute truth (Matthew 24:35; Psalm 119) and that if that task is delegated to someone else the parent should be careful to ensure that the educator is teaching truth's according to God's word (Exodus 18:21; 1 Samuel 1:27-28; 3:1-10).
Today's public (government funded and run) schools are not institutions that uphold and instruct children in God's truths. In fact, education is not a biblical responsibility of government as God ordained governments to be established for the protection of the people.
Daddypundit,
Do you eat shellfish? Then don't act like all of the Bible is of utmost importance to you. You pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like and don't like, and that's what you choose to follow. Pretending as though you have cornered the market on Biblical stewardship is nonsense.
Also, writing that you're only for the withdrawal from school by Christians for Biblical reasons is similarly absurd. See everything that Seeker has ever written about public schools for the real reasoning that (some) Christians seem to oppose public schools.
I would add that education is not value free, and the current value system of the school systems is getting to the point that it is contrary to Christian values.
Children are to be exposed to the world, but good parents also shield their children from unneccesary dangers – sending kids to schools these days is approaching the moral equivalent of telling them to go play in traffic.
Christian education is not anti-intellectual or intellectually narrow – that is a stereotype with little basis in fact. As the reports show, homeschooled kids appear to be better educated, more mature, and socially more adept than the average public schooler.
Christians believe that the decline in public school performance is not primarly a problem with funding, but a problem with a lack of public virtue in our culture, and the drift from proper curriculums and teaching styles in our schools.
Also, many people mistake home schooling as an isolationist, anti-society movement. But actually, the same people who preach home schooling also preach involvement in the culture, to learn of others, and to transform culture. Home schoolers usually integrate community involvement with their schooling, so helping neighbors, joining sports leagues and service groups are common.
The point is that secularlists are just as guilty as the far right in the culture wars, adding to the polarization of our country. My other point is that it's not just the "crazy" baptists, now it's also the Presbyterians. This could be the start of a mass movement out of the public schools.
For my kids sake, I would want to keep them out. But for society's sake, maybe we should continue to try to save the schools.
Sam,
I certainly don't have the market covered on anything, let alone stewardship. Honestly, I don't think I could have made a biblical case for homeschooling (or a lot of other things for that matter) a few months ago. You don't suddenly wake up one day and find that you're able to follow all of the direction the Bible gives you at one time. It's a process that we refer to as sanctification. In other words, it's allowing our lives and our behaviors to be molded to the biblical standard. In many cases it's not easy because it means having to sacrifice many things we would rather not give up.
I also find your remark about shellfish interesting. If you can provide a reference in scripture for that command please do as I would like to know where you found that.
I also agree with seeker that I'm glad to see someone else besides the Baptists take this stand. My guess is that this is going to become a hot issue for debate as our public education system continues to become more secularized.
Since we aren't a xtian theocracy public schools will not teach "Christian values" or from the xtian viewpoint. If Christians want that they should remove their kids from public education and place them in private schools or home-school them. Public education should remain religion neutral for the simple reason that our government is not in the business of endorsing or enforcing any specific religion. I'm not against teaching about religion as long as all religions are included. That would be a very valuable educational experience in my view. But it should not be taught from any specific religious viewpoint (in other words, no evangelizing), although it could point out ethical values common to all. Unfortunately, I don't think this is what DaddyPundit or seeker have in mind. They want a specifically religious and bible-based religious experience with conversion as the goal. Theocracy.
As it is, they're free to take their kids out of public schools if they want, as do many secular (and rich) parents. The schools have a lot of problems and I don't blame them. Unfortunately, running away isn't going to help.
From Leviticus, from the Old Testament. While I know that this isn't traditionally part of the Christian New Testament, its still a part of the bigger Bible. (See here for more, especially the fourth paragraph.)
Anyway, my point is that there isn't anybody who follows all of the Bible's rules and teachings. The very hypocrisy of suggesting otherwise seems negligent. Wouldn't it be better to admit that whatever denomination you belong to chooses which parts of the Bible it is and is not interested in?
Well, pulling my kid out of a dangerous situation is not running away. There are plenty of xian teachers who stay in the schools to make a difference.
Many "christian" values are not religious in nature, yet our culture, and often our curriculums, have abandoned them or contradict them. Things like chastity, honesty, and turning the other cheek are now replaced by health teachers that discourage chastity, mysogenistic and graphic sexual lyrics in popular music (not regulated by the children's parents, so they share it with my young kids), and violence.
I am too tired to be coherent, but xians actually do value a liberal education in the classic sense, but not in the modern, PC, atheistic, naturalistic/materialistic, anti-religious manner in which subjects are now taught.
However, secular education's bent toward naturalistic atheism is not necessarily a virtue. It
Sam, you make a point better than you can know. The whole point of Christianity is that no one can "follow all of the Bible's (God's) rules and teachings." God's standard is perfection, so we must obtain that to enter His presence – Heaven.
This is the difference between Christianity and every other religion. Other religions promote the silly nonsense that one can do "enough good things" to make it to heaven (or some variance of the same theme), while Christianity proposes that if God is really God then He is so higher above us that we can't do enough good things to reach Him. He has to take the intiative in the relationship. He has to provide the way for us to reach Him. Which He did in the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.
As to your point of ignoring some scripture, while emphasing others. The point can be taken but only so far. There are some Old Testament commandments that Christians do not view as currently unnecessary (your link explained it fairly well). The early Church under the inspiration of God did not force believers to be subject to many of the cultural rules placed on the Jewish people.
Sam, surely you can see the obvious difference between a prohibition on shellfish and other "unclean animals" (because of legitimate health concerns and connections to pagan rituals at the time) and a command for parents to love their children and teach them their beliefs.
We no longer have the same sanitary concerns over some of the animals because we have better sanitation capabilities than did the Jewish people the years before Christ. Each of the commands to the people was in hindsight perfectly legitimate to 1) ensure their health and safety 2) to differenitiate them from the pagans around them.
Many commands however still have relevance and application for us today. They go beyond don't eat pork, to deeper things such as loving God and devotion to your family. This are not negated by time and were reaffirmed by God in the New Testament.
The whole question of which of the OT laws are binding on Christians, not to mention which we should attempt to legislate, has long since been aswered in xian theology. There are two types of OT law – ceremonial (which include the dietary laws) and moral (e.g. the 10 commandments). The former are not binding, the latter are, on all humanity. See here for a decent summary. This article is not that great, but has a nice table separating the moral and ceremonial scriptures.
Blaming "secularists" for the divide in America is positively absurd.
Actually, I think that the extremists at both ends of the spectrum are to blame. ACLU leftists (a.k.a. secularlists) are anti-religion in public life, to the point of supressing religious freedoms and knowledge. Hard core religious rightists insist on prayer in schools (even xian prayer), but among evangelicals, this is debated.
Those whom we should blame are unwilling to compromise, like not allowing teachers to include even a *day* of teaching the controversies around evolution in schools, or not allowing the teaching of abstinence or condom use, etc.
The art of compromise has been lost in our current extreme society.
Fellas,
My point about the shellfish was actually this – I know that you guys don't like it, and define it as ceremonial. In other words, there's a rule that you don't like, so you don't do it. Fine.
But here's the point – none of you are on this site demanding a Constitutional Amendment to ban adultery, and that is a law, and according to the posts here, one of the most important Biblical rules.
Meanwhile, there's nothing in THE MOST IMPORTANT set of Biblical laws about homosexuality. I find it very difficult to take Christians seriously about their religion when they ignore the Ten Commandments to focus on laws persecuting gays. You're the ones arguing that the Ten Commandments are SO INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, and yet none of you are proposing a legal ban on adultery. Whereas, you are supporting a ban on gay marriage.
I find that dichotomy disturbing.
If this pops up twice, sorry, I am having issues getting it to post or at least say it posted.
It's not that we "don't like" the shellfish rule, it's that ceremonial law were no longer needed after Jesus. The system was set up by the early Church, those we walked and talked with Jesus on this Earth. It is not as if in 1980 Christians decided that we didn't like some of the Old Testament rules and we got rid of them.
The conflicting thing would be if we sought to establish a constitutional amendment banning gay sex while not seeking one to ban other sex outside of marriage. That you can make the analogy, but committing adultery does not seek to redefine a cultural tradition (agree with it or not). It is a lot more serious a discussion to change the meaning of a centuries old term and institution than it is to decide if we should make affairs illegal. That does not mean one is more or less wrong or one will have a worse effect on society as a whole, simply that a foundational institution is not to be treated lightly and changed simply because culture feels like it.
As to the Constitutional Amendment, you won't see me defending it with much vigor, since I am opposed to it for the most part.
And you really don't want to see "us" propose a ban on adultery. You would be here yelling and screaming about how stupid we were if we attempted to do that.
But, you misunderstand Christianity and even Judiasm if you think that one rule carries more weight and is worse than another rule.
It's not that we "don't like" the shellfish rule, it's that ceremonial law were no longer needed after Jesus. The system was set up by the early Church, those we walked and talked with Jesus on this Earth. It is not as if in 1980 Christians decided that we didn't like some of the Old Testament rules and we got rid of them.
The conflicting thing would be if we sought to establish a constitutional amendment banning gay sex while not seeking one to ban other sex outside of marriage. That you can make the analogy, but committing adultery does not seek to redefine a cultural tradition (agree with it or not). It is a lot more serious a discussion to change the meaning of a centuries old term and institution than it is to decide if we should make affairs illegal. That does not mean one is more or less wrong or one will have a worse effect on society as a whole, simply that a foundational institution is not to be treated lightly and changed simply because culture feels like it.
As to the Constitutional Amendment, you won't see me defending it with much vigor, since I am opposed to it for the most part.
And you really don't want to see "us" propose a ban on adultery. You would be here yelling and screaming about how stupid we were if we attempted to do that.
But, you misunderstand Christianity and even Judiasm if you think that one rule carries more weight and is worse than another rule.
Aaron,
See Seeker's post…or, better yet, I'll cut and paste what he wrote: There are two types of OT law – ceremonial (which include the dietary laws) and moral (e.g. the 10 commandments). The former are not binding, the latter are, on all humanity.
I would take that to mean that some rules are more important than others. And if Christians tried to legislate adultery, then of course I'd be screaming about it. And so would most Americans who don't want to see a ban on adultery written into the Constitution. Here's the thing though – Christians know they'd lose big time on a ban like that. They also know that they're likely to win the argument on gay marriage, because most Americans don't mind taking swipes at gays every once in a while.
Finally, I know that you're against the Amendment Aaron. I'm using you to get at Seeker, who is far less decent than you are when it comes to even considering the other side's points and opinions.
Don't use me to get at anyone. Again, I will let seeker defend himself. He doesn't need me, but he is a lot more decent than you or Louis give him credit for. In fact, on many issues, he is more liberal than I am (since that seems to be the determining factor for decency and fairness).
Let's take the laws things from two different perspectives. Jews were/are called to obey the Mosaic law which included the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial laws. The did not get to say I don't have to obey the Ten Commandments because I didn't eat pig, or vice versa.
Christianity is a bit different. As I said, those who lived and talked with Jesus understood that when He said He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill He was saying that the ceremonial laws more so than anything else were meant as a guide to point people ultimately to Him. The laws are not removed from our Bible because they show us how short we fall of God's standards and many point to the future sacrifice of Christ for the sins of humanity. But the moral laws that God placed on people in order to help them live a better life are carried over from the OT, whether we like them or not.
Also, Christians positions (at least mine or virtually everyone I have come in contact with) have little to do with what is politically feasable. The possibility of something becoming a reality often is determined by the political climate, so of course it weighs on some issues. (I would love to see a ban on abortion, but I don't think it is possible now. There is still work to do in convincing people of the horrors of the procedure for the baby and the woman.)
As I say in my most recent post, too often people take the short route, by passing convincing people with reasoned debate, and go straight for passing a law. The more closely Christianity has alligned itself with political parties the worse it has become in seeking to establish laws to seek to change hearts, which is next to impossible. (But this is still into another debate which we have had where I contend that it is impossible to not legislate morality, the only question is always whos morality to legislate.)
And the majority (I can't say "all" because I don't know about some) of Christians have no concern or desire to take "swipes at gays every once in a while." Most honestly believe that gay marriage would threaten them and the institution of marriage. You can disagree with them (me?) on that point, but it is irresponsible to impose your own negative ideas of their motives on people you do not know.
I think you also misapprehend what is going on in the legal battles over sexuality, and the extent to which law should apply.
Homosexuals are trying to get legislation that legitimizes their lifestyle, making it socially acceptable by law. No one is doing such for adultery. No one is in schools trying to teach our kids that adultery is just a normal alternative lifestyle. No one is seeking to give legal rights to adulterers. The gay lobby is doing such. I suspect that if some pro-adultery group attempted such things, Christians would be just as vocal in opposition.
Christians are also very active in opposing adulterous behaviors, offering seminars for the healing of adultery and divorce, and encouraging their opposite, which is smart marriage, growing marriages, and fidelity. With homosexuality, they take the same stances – they offer healing, and encouragement in the virtues that are the opposite of homosexuality. If they gay apologists weren't pushing for gay marriage, Christians would probably not be seeking to legislate to protect us from the norming of these behaviors.
Regarding emphasizing one sin over the other, I have three points to offer:
1. In one sense, all sin is an offense to God, big and small. Hypocrisy as bad as murder, etc.
2. In another sense, some sins have a much greater negative impact, and so are worse – thinking about cheating on my wife and doing it are not the same. Those who take Jesus' saying about "if you lust after a woman, you have already committed adultery in your heart" as equating the thought and the action are missing the point. He was not saying that they are of the same caliber, but rather, that God expects purity of heart, not just outer conformance to rules.
3. At certain times, certain vices are more prevalent in society, and need more energy in addressing them because they have a greater potential for negative impact. Some people believe that poverty should be addressed in our country, while others think that the sliding moral character which produces children out of wedlock is critical. Others see the long term damaging affects of norming homosexuality as worthy of opposition. Who is right? Only time will tell.
While some critics think that modern evangelicalism has a fixation with sexual issues (abortion, homosexuality, birth control), conservatives would retort that they are responding to our culture's great obsession with sexual immorality. Further they would say that this immorality has devestating consequences that should be addressed – abortion kills children, teaching sexuality without chastity to children seriously affects them, and norming homosexuality also hurts our children – Xians are responding to the rampant sexual immorality of our times which affects our most precious commodity, our future, the children.
And Xians do a lot to deal with poverty and gangs and other real problems, but this doens't get as much news coverage becuase it is not as contentious. Xians don't have to waste their breath fighting arguments about whether or not alleviating poverty is right. If there was less support for such blatant immorality in our culture, we could spend more energy working to solve problems rather than fighting in the arena of ideas.
But first, as the Apostle Paul said, we must spend time attacking the real enemy, the lies we believe.
"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God…" (emphasis mine) 2 Corinthians 10:4-5.
Re: legislating sexual morality. Why don't we stop it? I mean, stop legislating sexual morality altogether. Both sides would then refrain from using the gov't to impose their morality on the entire culture. One good example is to repeal all marriage laws: don't define marriage. Sure, there are certain legal arrangements between two adults which could be codified legally as civil unions, but leave the definition of marriage to religion or individual preference. "Marriage" would occur in churches or ashrams or temples or backyards. Likewise with adultery, homosexual relations, etc. Thus, we could all achieve the virtue of minding our own business more efficiently.
Louis,
That might be a fine solution, but to a limited extent, I think that governement should use the tax code to encourage behaviors that we think are beneficial to society. That's why we give breaks to homeowners and small businesses.
Arguably, a stable male/female relationship, as evidenced by civil marriage, should be encouraged, some might argue, since we think this type of family to be the foundation for healthy children. I suppose this is the point we would disagree on. If the government said naught about this, I suppose we would not be having this public bruahaha, at least, not in the civil courts.
I don't like this idea of using the tax code to coerce certain behavior. Once again, it's big gov't interfering in our private lives. And who's to determine "beneficial behavior"? That's legislating morality in a false face.
Well, most (all?) legislation involves morality, by definition. Thou shalt not kill, lie, cheat, steal are all moral.
Some things seem amoral, but maybe they are not. For instance, is providing for the common defense a moral question? Should we be taxed to provide for a military?
And what's wrong with structuring the tax code to encourage saving, investing, and other activities that are proven to help the economny and indivuals? I also like structuring it to encourage charitable giving – I think that it is proper, even necessary, to consider the impact of taxes and legislation on the society. If we make selling marijuana legal, what will happen? If we make it illegal, what happens? Does it matter what happens? Of course. Those are ethical, and often moral choices.
Aaron and Seeker,
How are YOU personally threatened by gay marriage? Inform me, because both of you have said that your marriages wouldn't crumble if gay marriage were legalized. Of course, there is no answer here. Neither of you would divorce your wife and ignore your children because two guys down the street got to visit one another at the hospital when the other was sick.
And this stance of yours on Biblical laws is bizarre. The Ten Commandments are the Big Ten, right? Yet, none of you are proposing that they be legislated. No, you're suggesting that the issue of homosexual marriage be dealt with. Why wouldn't God, if s/he cared so much, have mentioned that in your Ten Commandments?
The ideal for America is legislated morality wouldn't happen. All behaviors that didn't hurt others would be tolerated. Drug use. Prostitution. Gay Marriage. There's no reason to waste our time on telling us what we can and cannot do.
Well, the ten commandments are not the sum of the moral law, nor of moral principle, esp. for xians. After the 10 commandments, Moses gave a veritable book of laws, in great detail. If you look in the NT, Jesus gave many commands (go into all the world and preach the gospel), as did Paul the Apostle, including helping the poor, and avoiding sexual immorality.
Many of the ten commandments are currently legislated. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness (lying in court, slander). Thou shalt not commit adultery (well, it is not explicity prohibited, but it is grounds for divorce, although we have also allowed no fault divorce).
Again, there are limits to what we should legislate, and there are xian principles of civil government, and how we should make laws. Whole books are written on the subject. We are not to just "take all the bible laws and make them the law of the land." Civil govt must be balanced with the rights and responsibilities of the other spheres of govt.
I think sodomy laws are silly. Xians differ on civil unions, and I believe that most xians agree that people who are not married or kin may get most of the legal rights that married couples have through wills and power of attorney and other such legal actions.
And xians are not trying to prohibit homosexuality via the law – they are merely trying to prevent it from being morally condoned (*that* is legislating morality too) by giving it legal status equal to male/female marriage. If gays weren't pushing for legal status, they would not have a bunch of xians trying to pass legislation. But they are going too far in trying to push their lifestyle as norm on our society, and on our children.
Sam that question is the wrong question to ask. If we could go back in time and ask someone in a healthy, strong marriage, "How are YOU personally threatened by no-fault divorce?" how could they answer that. Their marriage would not crumble because the marriage down the street ended for no good reason. But society has been harmed by the weakening of marriage and the two parent home.
Check what ever crime or poverty rates you want, virtually all of them are influenced by the lack of two present involved parents. Why do children have to go through counciling after divorce? Because it effects them. It harms their self-esteem, their image of the world, etc. It removes stability and replaces it with instability.
I am not equating gay marriage with no fault divorce, except to say both are shifts in the focus on a man and woman for life. I don't know what consequences would come if the US suddenly recognized gay marriage as norm and equal to marriage.
Having developed somewhat of a libertarian streak in me, I would be more willing to go along with Louis' suggestion or again to allow states to set their own moral guidelines without having some federal court appointed mandate forced on them.
As to Sam's thoughts on our understanding of Biblical law as "bizarre." You keep confusing two different things – gay marriage and being gay. One can be "controlled" by the government, the other cannot and should not. The government can decide what unions they want to recognize (though I think the institution of marriage predates the government not allowing them to change it), but the government cannot and should not say "you can't be gay."
Also much of this debate is framed in religion but there are many people who are atheists are nominal Christians at best who believe that marriage should not be changed. They do so based on reason, not merely on the Bible.
So, when you write two parent homes, what you meant was a mother and a father, right? Because, obviously, gays, by virtue of the sex they have, are incapable of being good parents.
I work with children who have no families because they can’t go back to the pieces of filth that bred them, parents who beat their children senseless, parents who raped them. And these were people that were MARRIED. Why don’t we take away the marriage rights of straights for these crimes?
Because they’d be damned silly. Just as its silly in the greatest country on Earth to reduce gays BORN gay to second class citizens because we don’t LIKE them.
A loving gay family is better than a non-loving hetero family, in general. However, for healthy gender development, children really need both sexes present in a consistent, loving way. Gay homes don't quite measure up that way. The best they can do is supplement with friends.
Oh my God, there's an almost concession from Seeker! I'm feeling woozy!