It is Morally Permissible to Educate
Our Children in the Public Schools?

by Doug Wilson & Robert Simonds
Originally posted on Antithesis
Statement on offsite articles

Issue and Interchange

The goal of this regular feature is to provide our readers with opposing arguments on topics pertinent to the Christian life. We hope to encourage the reader to focus on the arguments involved in each position rather than on personal factors.

The authors selected for the respective sides in the debate are outspoken supporters of their viewpoints.

Douglas Wilson opens the debate by arguing that Scripture forbids Christians to educate their children in public schools. Mr. Wilson, M.A. (philosophy; University of Idaho), is a teaching elder of Community Evangelical Fellowship, Moscow, Idaho, and author of numerous published essays and books, including the forthcoming Turning Point series text on education, Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning (Crossway Books).

Taking an opposing position is Dr. Robert Simonds Th.D., president and founder of the National Association of Christian Educators and Citizens for Excellence in Education. Dr. Simonds served on President Reagan's "Forum to Implement the National Commission on Excellence in Education Report: A Nation at Risk" and is the Southern California Chairman of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The burden of proof in the interchange is placed on the person opening the discussion, and so Douglas Wilson will open and close the interchange.

Wilson: Scripture Forbids Us to Educate Our Children in the Public Schools

Is a Christian education something which Christian parents are morally obligated to provide for their children? In what follows, I argue the affirmative and seek to place the ground of this obligation in the plain reading of Scripture. For if a prohibition or requirement is not based on Scripture, there is obviously no true moral obligation involved.

As Christians, we must begin with the assumption that there is no area of life where Biblical principles are irrelevant. So even though the Bible does not directly address every problem in the modern world with our terminology (including the public schools), nevertheless, the Scriptures do address the problem directly. God has revealed in His Word how He wants us to rear and educate our children.

To ensure that we are talking about the same thing, I will begin with a definition of "public schools." For the purpose of my discussion here, a public school is an officially agnostic, tax-supported institution of education for dependent children. Frankly, quite aside from the following arguments, I believe any Christian who grants this definition will immediately concede that a strong case has already been made. And anyone who denies the definition will have trouble with his case because the definition is so obviously descriptive of what we call the public schools here in America.

There are a series of arguments on the necessity of Christian education that can be made from Scripture. They are:

1. Christian parents are morally obligated to keep their children out of public schools because the Scriptures expressly require a non-agnostic form of education. Consider this passage in Deuteronomy on the instruction of children.

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. 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" (Dt. 6:4-9).

It is important to remember that this required instruction in the law was not limited to "spiritual truth." It involved agriculture, economics, history, sex education, etc. -- what we call education. The Biblical mentality is not compartmentalized into two distinct areas of thought: secular and sacred. All of life is under the authority of God's revealed Word, and children were to be taught in terms of this comprehensive authority all the time.

The same mentality about the instruction of children can be seen in the New Testament: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. `Honor your father and mother,' which is the first commandment with a promise: `that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.' And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:1-4).

Notice that in the Deuter-onomy passage the requirement is that children live in an environment pervaded by Scripture. A thorough and Biblical instruction can only be provided successfully if it is happening all the time. Teaching in terms of God's Word must occur when walking, driving, sitting, and when lying down. Nothing could be clearer -- God wants the children of His people to live in an environment conditioned by His Word. In Ephesians, we see the same thing, although stated less directly. Children are to be brought up in something; that something is the Word of God.

Pose the question another way. What area of life has God declared to be neutral, in which it is permissible to ignore Him, and His Word, while we instruct our children? The answer is that there is no such neutral zone.

2. Christian parents are morally obligated to keep their children out of the public schools because of the requirements of the greatest commandment. Jesus requires His people to love the Lord their God with all their minds (Mt. 22:37). This means that the command to be teaching your children all the time must not to be interpreted as simply applying to religious instruction, set off by itself in an airtight compartment. If our children are not taught to think like Christians when they study math, history, or science, then they are not obeying the command to love God with all their minds. And if they are not obeying the command, the parents are held responsible. This is because parents are responsible to instruct their children in what God requires of them. And it must be remembered that Jesus taught us that this is the greatest command. It is clear that God's people, and their children, are required to love the Lord their God with all their brains. This involves more than a general acquaintance with David, Goliath, Samson, Noah, et al. Sunday School once a week will not get this job done. Nor will family devotions do for a few minutes each night.

This second argument is obviously related to the first argument presented above, although there is a difference of emphasis. Deuteronomy 6 requires instruction in all of God's standards, all of the time. The greatest commandment requires the child to receive and love this instruction with all his mind. Because parents are responsible for bringing up children in such a way that they will obey the requirements placed on them by God, it is obvious that the education they provide for their children must teach them to love God in all subjects.

3. Christian parents are morally obligated to keep their children out of the public schools because God expects parents to provide for, and protect, their children. It is truly odd that one of the most common charges made against parents who provide a Christian education for their children is that they are "sheltering" them. O tempora! O mores! What is our nation coming to? Parents sheltering children!

Because pluralism (with regard to worldviews) is a false theology (it is institutional agnosticism), Christian parents are required to protect their children from this lie. Because the public schools are an established institution, required by law to teach and practice agnosticism, Christian parents are obligated to protect children from exposure to this false teaching. The principle is acknowledged by all Christians; it is simply not applied to the issue of public education by some. I cannot imagine us having this debate about Christian kids in Vacation Bible Schools run by the Jehovah's Witnesses. So why do we treat agnosticism as a preferable heresy?

Christianity is not the only worldview that pervades all subjects; false teaching is also pervasive. If a Christian parent attempts to neutralize the false teaching, it means he has to spend many hours every night countering what the children learned that day in school. This is impossible because the parent doesn't know exactly what the children learned that day. And the children themselves have not been equipped to come back and report on what was unbiblical in what they heard. This makes responsible oversight extremely difficult, and I would argue, impossible. The only alternative is a private Christian education, which a Christian parent can provide, or monitor.

Christian parents are morally obligated to keep their children out of the public schools because sending children into an intellectual, ethical and religious war zone without adequate training and preparation is a violation of charity. In a physical war, we know that a country is desperate when they send their children to fight. In the same way, the saints in this country are in pretty sad shape. We send our kids off to be warriors, instead of training them to be warriors.

My children are being educated privately. They are being trained to hold and apply a Christian worldview. I am not trying to keep them from encounters with those who hate God; I am trying to train them and prepare them for it. We don't send adults to the mission field without training and preparation. During that time of training, they must be protected. What makes us think that sending unequipped seven-year olds off to be "salt and light" in an officially agnostic institution, without training and preparation, is consistent with charity?

Means for such preparation exist; such preparation is called a Christian education. Once such an education has been provided by the parents, and if the child is truly equipped, he may then be sent into the world. If the parents have done their job, the young adult will be more than a match for anything he meets.

4. Christian parents are morally obligated to keep their children out of the public schools because of the declared intellectual goal assigned to the Church in Scripture. Paul says, "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, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ...(II Cor. 10:4-5).

Question: Are there any strongholds in the public school system against the knowledge of God? Any such rebellious arguments? Is there any high thing that exalts itself in defiance of God? Our goal as Christians must therefore be to pull them all down. Christians who content themselves, in the educational sphere, with anything less than absolute obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ are compromising this goal given to us in Scripture.

I know of no Christian reformers of public education who have vowed that they will settle for nothing less than explicitly Christian public schools. Christian reformers generally would settle for a piece of the action, or a "say" in the great pluralistic discussion. Thus, they do not have conquest, which is the goal of II Cor. 10:4-5, in mind.

Pluralism is an attempt to make everyone leave everyone else alone; it seeks to make evangelism an offense. But if Christianity is an evangelistic religion, and it is, then pluralism is an attempt to make Christianity an offense. Christians who agree to the truce which pluralism attempts to impose are being unfaithful to the mission of the Church.

But what if some Christians do adopt such a goal of "conquest," i.e. they want the public schools to become tax-supported Christian schools? Then their attempts should be resisted for a different reason; God does not assign educational responsibilities to the civil magistrates, even if the magistrates are godly. It is not their job.

5. Christian parents are morally obligated to keep their children out of the public schools because not to do so subsidizes a lie. Every time the public school doors open, they declare their independence from God in all things. They, officially and on the record, claim the right to teach all their subjects without any submission to God and His Word. Christians who send their children to such schools are subsidizing, with their children as the payment, this particular lie, which we have already discussed.

If every Christian parent pulled their children out of the public school system, that school system, along with the lie, would collapse. I mean, the public schools would collapse if only the Southern Baptists pulled out. This means that Christians are keeping an institution dedicated to false teaching in existence.

In summary, I have argued that Christian education is not a luxury, or an option. It is part of Christian discipleship for those who have been blessed with children. Christian education is a necessity because the Bible requires non-agnostic education, because the greatest command includes loving God with all our intellectual capacity, because Christian parents should protect their children from lies, because the goal of the Christian church must be nothing less than intellectual conquest, and because this officially agnostic institution depends for its continued existence on the attendance of professing Christians.

A Biblical definition of morality would be: to know right from wrong and to do what is right. For the Christian, the Bible is the only infallible book of right and wrong. It is also the Bible which guides a true Christian in "how" to do what is deemed to be absolutely right -- or moral.

It is my belief that parents can (not necessarily should) morally send their children to public schools. I have five children. All have gone through our public schools (one is still in the seventh grade) from Kindergarten through medical school. They have been outstanding witnesses and evangelists through school. All are walking with Christ. All adore Jesus and live from their Bibles daily. They are all grown (except our darling little twelve-year-old tag-along) and established in Christian professions or ministry. How did this happen, when according to my learned brother Doug Wilson (whom I deeply respect and largely agree with), I have been committing sin by sending them to public schools? Granted, what works for one Christian family may not be recommended for all, and granted that what works is not necessarily right (bribes work, but the Bible says they are not right). So let us analyze the reasoning and morality of the thesis and antithesis.

First, there are basically three ways to educate your child: (1) Home Schooling -- and this is the only clearly explicit method of educating children mentioned in Scripture; (2) Christian (or other private) schooling -- which in our day and age of corrupt public schools, is still the second most preferred method of educating our children; (3) Public schools --which is the least desirable of the three options but most used.

Therefore, I would argue for the only purely scriptural method of educating our children to be home schooling. Not only do you control the curriculum, the reading materials, and the moral and spiritual worldviews your child would learn, but you control the pedagogy (methods) used to teach them.

Naturally a home school is a "Christian school," but that is not the environment implied in Mr. Wilson's thesis. Therefore, if we hold to a strict Biblical directive, home schooling, by Mr. Wilson's own definition, would be the only option. However, while contending only for Christian schools, he skips over the only purely Biblical option -- home schooling -- which severely undercuts his general rationale.

The Christian school is the more practical option for most Christian parents, because of many parents' feelings of inadequacy for handling home schooling or perhaps both parents may be working.

In any case, parents still have the primary responsibility for educating their children -- whether at home, in Christian schools, or public schools. As good as Christian schools are, generally, we constantly find many using atheistic public school materials and even textbooks. Children are not necessarily safe there. Some home schooling is the only true safeguard.

After all our promotion of Christian schools to Christian parents, only ten percent of our church children attend Christian schools. Ninety percent of all church children today attend public schools. Of 44,000,000 K-12 children, only ten percent attend private schools and only five percent of those go to Christian schools (2.5 million), according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Statistics do not prove that something is right or wrong, but they point out where we are. Public schools are most used because they are free, convenient and (mistakenly) trusted. Christian schools are less used by Christians because of cost, inconvenience, and lack of information.

Let us analyze our brother's rationale, which would leave Christians who choose to send their children to public schools with a very big guilt trip. Not that guilt is not proper concerning sin. But to imply or explicitly state that it is immoral to send a child to public school may indicate an unscriptural attitude of judgment in an area of choice for Christians.

Now a brief look at Doug Wilson's rationale. First, Mr. Wilson defines public schools as "an officially agnostic, tax-supported institution of education for dependent children." And he rests the greatest weight of his argument on this presupposition and says, "any Christian who grants this definition will immediately concede...." Please note that this statement is inaccurate. That then weakens his entire thesis. Officially, public schools exist "to provide education to all America's children. The schools must remain neutral on teaching `of' religion, but not be inhibited in the teaching `about' religion."

In most cases, teachers try hard to follow this dictum. Of course, not always -- and we hear more about those who don't than those who do.

Secondly, the author says the "Scriptures expressly require a non-agnostic form of education." Agreed! But the Scriptures do not explicitly say where the theistic (Godly) education must come from. Obviously, though, the Bible makes it clear that it must come from the Christian home. The Scriptures admonish us to train up our own child -- not someone else's child. The schools may "teach" a child -- only a parent can "train" up a child. Teaching is only the first half of training. Teaching may cover the "about" portion of religious training, but training is the second and higher plane of indoctrinating a child into an automatic response action.

A pilot may be taught how to fly an A-15 jet fighter airplane. But if he is not trained before flying it he will surely die. Even so, Christians must learn the difference between teaching and training.

Every parent must accept the moral responsibility to teach and "train-up" their own children in their own home -- no matter where they may attend day school -- public or private. To do otherwise would not fulfill God's law. We would miss the mark. It would then be sin and not moral.

It should be pointed out that Daniel grew up in an environment of a hedonistic, occultic culture -- Babylon. His home training completely protected him. Mr. Wilson argues that parents can't help their children at night because they don't know exactly what their children learned that day. Really? Why not? We question our own children thoroughly. We read every single text and reading assignment. We provide them with overview, Scriptural truth, and point out errors. Christian parents' real moral obligation is to be available to help them as "you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up" (Deut. 6:8-9). Those are all done in the home.

In II Corinthians 10:4-5, we have a call to Christians to bring down the strongholds of the enemy -- not by keeping our kids out -- but by exercising good citizenship and being "salt" and "light" in our schools. We should be taking the entire system back to the control of Christian parents, not abdicating our moral and spiritual obligation to protect our own children and all of America's 44,000,000 K-12 students.

We have been copping-out for thirty years now. And what has it gotten us? From 1979-89, one third of all church children have dropped out of church -- largely because of an atheistic, no-value system in our public schools. Now that makes a great point for Mr. Wilson's thesis to put our children in Christian schools, right? Wrong. Why?

Because Christians are not putting them in Christian schools, in spite of our urging them to do so. Why not take another approach to this dilemma and make our public schools and our children's education the number one priority in every church. We could elect a majority of school board members in every one of America's 15,700 school districts.

Christian parents could then control all curriculum, textbooks, reading, teaching, and administration in just three short years. A dream? Hardly. We are already doing it by organizing a Citizens for Excellence in Education chapter in all 15,700 districts. The only thing stopping us from complete victory is a lack of funding. It can be done if we believe in God.

Why aren't all churches jumping in and making this total victory possible? Because we are still holding on to this archaic philosophy that it is immoral to send your children to public schools -- or even to be involved with public schools. Thank God that is changing. We have 75,000 Christian parents now involved with over 600 chapters and 1500 school districts now under local Christian influence.

And shouldn't Christian parents be trained to protect their children from bad education, no matter if it's in public or Christian schools? I could write a nice little book just on first hand counseling I've done with Christian parents with children in Christian schools, whose children have been taught everything from "values clarification" (no values -- all things are relative), to the occult -- and even child molestation. Are all Christian schools safe? Certainly not. Is a Christian "immoral" to send his child to those Christian schools? No! They should work to correct the problem, not run away and hide. This is true also in the public schools.

If it is "immoral" to send our child to a public school, then we must ask ourselves some very serious question. Is it "immoral" for a Christian to work for a secular company -- an ungodly and worldly bunch? Is it immoral for a Christian to vote for a person who is not a thoroughly born again, godly, Christian? Do we opt for the lesser of two evils or do nothing and thereby often choose the most evil of all? Shall we never use public facilities of any kind which are financed by taxes or run by civil authorities? Shall we stop paying taxes which are subsidizing public schools?

Our dear brother says that when we send our children to public schools we are subsidizing evil by our own taxes. But do you not pay those taxes whether you use the schools or not? Does not a Christian who pays taxes for his child's education get double-taxed when he must pay for his child's Christian school education? Is that good stewardship? Is it justice? No!

Mr. Wilson calls Christians to conquest: "The goal of the Christian church must be nothing less than intellectual conquest." I agree! Then why should we try to put a guilt trip on Christians as "immoral" for doing exactly that -- teaching their children to "conquer" evil in their own lives and resist the world's sins. If that kind of Christian reasoning long endures, you will see the demise of the church in our nation in just two more generations. May our loving Lord and Savior Jesus Christ help us all to be rational, accurate, loving, patient, and kind to one another. How I love God's dear people! May we all commit ourselves to loving all innocent children who need our love, hard work, and victories in their behalf. Selah!

It is a distinct pleasure to debate with a Christian gentleman. I trust that in the exchange which follows I will be able to express myself as graciously as Dr. Simonds. I am afraid, however, that all the graciousness in the world will not be able to paper over the fundamental difference here. And, because this is a debate, to the differences we go!

First, Dr. Simonds contends that I skipped over the only purely Biblical option, which he identifies as home-schooling. The reason I skipped over that was because it was not the subject of the debate. (I also skipped over the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII.) It is true that nowhere in my piece do I say anything about home-schools vs. private Christian institutions. The debate between them is important, but it is primarily pedagogical, not ethical. All my arguments were geared to whether Christian children should be in public schools, and they are arguments with which both home schoolers and Christian school advocates can readily agree.

Dr. Simonds also pointed out that not all Christian schools are good. "Children are not necessarily safe there." This is quite true, but it is also not the subject of the debate. The question is not whether it is morally required to send your child to any and every institution bearing the name Christian school.

Closer to the heart of the debate, Dr. Simonds challenges my definition of the public schools. The part of my definition he appears to question is the claim that public schools are "officially agnostic." He says, "Please note that this statement is inaccurate." He then goes on to say, "The schools must remain neutral on the teaching `of' religion, but not 'about' religion." He then goes on to argue that a "non-agnostic" form of education can be provided by godly parents as a result of a combination of the base education provided at school, mixed with the particular doctrines and beliefs of the parents at home. The picture that comes to my mind is the one of how paints are mixed at a paint store. The base paint is neutral, and various colors are added to suit the customer. Only in this case the customers mix in their own colors at home.

Now if the schools must remain neutral on the teaching of religion, how is this not official agnosticism? They are allowed to teach about religion, true, but does this include the permission to say which one is right? Or is that a detail? And where does Scripture allow us to believe that truth can be learned this way, with a certain percentage of basic, neutral facts, which are then mixed with the truths of Christianity? The Bible teaches that all truth is God's truth, and none of it is neutral. There is no such thing as neutrality.

On a personal note, I was frankly impressed when Dr. Simonds said that he and his wife read every single assignment. It is good that he and his wife discuss with theirkids what they heard during the day. And apparently the degree of their commitment is reflected in the character of their children; we all rejoice that they are walking with the Lord. But I have direct experience with this sort of thing too; I am one of four children, all of whom went all the way through the public schools system, and all of whom are still Christians. Whenever I was taught something which I understood to be in conflict with the faith of my parents, I rejected the lie. But the key phrase here is which I understood. There were many lies which got by my childish defenses. I am now thirty-seven, and I am still unlearning my public school education.

Dr. Simonds agreed with an application of II Cor. 10:4-5 to education, but said that Christian parents ought to be taking control of the entire public school system, instead of abandoning it. But this creates two questions: First, why should we have to do all this if it is possible to provide a godly education for our kids by combining Christian ed at home with neutral ed received during the day? If it is true that "in most cases teachers try hard" to follow the dictum that requires the public schools to be neutral in the teaching of religion, and Dr. Simonds says that it is, then why do we have to take over anything? Why do we not simply concentrate on mixing in our own colors at home?

Secondly, if we answer this call to conquest, do we take the schools back in order to make them explicitly Christian, or do we take them back because the secularists cannot be trusted to keep them neutral, while we Christians can keep them neutral?

If the former, then are we not formally establishing the Christian religion in a tax-funded institution? Are we not requiring the non-Christians to pay for the propagation of a faith they do not believe? And is this not doing unto them what we do not like done unto us? Is Dr. Simonds making this a debate between advocates of different kinds of Christian education, i.e. tax-supported vs. privately-financed?

And if it is the latter option, I would ask for the Scriptural imperative which requires us to fight to maintain a neutral institution, with a mission to propagate neutral facts.

Dr. Simonds then says that 33% of all church children have dropped out of church, largely because, he says, of the atheistic no-value system in our public schools. He then offers this argument, which I frankly find quite baffling. But perhaps I have misunderstood. He says, "Now that makes a great point for Mr. Wilson's thesis, to put our children in Christian schools, right? Wrong. Why? Because Christians are not putting them in Christian schools in spite of our urging them to do so." Let us apply this argument elsewhere. People who smoke 22 packs of Turkish cigarettes a day are dropping like flies. Mr. Wilson has urged them to quit. Now if they do not quit, and they continue to assume room temperature, can we reason from this that they ought not to quit? I don't think so.

He then argues that if churches made the public schools a high priority, we could elect Christians to school boards all over the country. We could then control "all curriculum, textbooks, reading, teaching and administration in just three short years." Again, control to what purpose? Explicitly Christian public schools? Or schools run by Christians to be neutral?

The hindrance, he says, to this conquest of the public schools is that we "are still holding onto this archaic philosophy" that it is immoral to send your children to public schools. Now even if what I argue here is wrong, it is hardly archaic. The Christian school movement in America is very young, and the home school movement is even younger. Those Christian parents whose kids are in the public schools are the current establishment; the reformation, the change, comes from those parents seeking to provide a Christian education.

Dr. Simonds concludes by asking whether, given my reasoning, it is immoral for a Christian to be in the world, rubbing shoulders with all the pagans out there. The biblical answer to this is that we are supposed to be in the world (see for example 1 Corinthians 5:9-10). But we must be constantly vigilant to see that the world stays out of us, and we must take particular care to keep the world out of our children. We must train our children to go into the world; we must not help the world go into our children.

At one point in his conclusion, I am afraid Dr. Simonds misinterpreted my argument. He says, "Our dear brother says when we send our children to public schools we are subsidizing evil by our taxes." What I said was, "Christians who send their children to such schools are subsidizing, with their children as the payment, this particular lie..." About half my property taxes go to support the public school system, and I submissively pay those taxes; they are God's chastisement. I am biblically allowed to pay this tax, because Caesar's image is on what I send them. But God's image is on my children, and I am forbidden to render them to Caesar (Matt. 22:21).

In conclusion, I appreciate the tone of Dr. Simonds' arguments. I am grateful for his commitment to his children. I am glad that we can agree that atheistic no-value education is harmful to children. But after that point, we part company. I believe that all the education of Christian children should be thoroughly, consistently, and explicitly Christian, and that it should be financed voluntarily by Christians. In contrast, Dr. Simonds believes part of the education need not be explicitly Christian, and that Christian parents should provide the Christianity at home.

The argument that it is immoral to educate a child in public schools certainly has the high moral ground of Scripture, when evaluating the immorality children are exposed to in our public schools today.

However, we must be careful to keep our thinking clear and unclouded by our own beautiful Christian prejudices. Public schools are, at present, such an immoral and academically bankrupt system that we would find it difficult to recommend the public schools as a solution to educating our own or our nation's children. I have never recommended that anyone send their children to public schools. However, ninety percent of our church children still go to public schools.

We must clearly differentiate between an immoral school system and an immoral parent. Nothing could be more immoral or academically and politically bankrupt than our college and university system today. However, please observe how many of our Christian college professors and even our pastors have received a good portion of their education in these secular institutions of corruption. Are they all immoral because of it? The truth is, sadly, that you are "distinguished" if your degrees are secular.

Most of our Christian colleges and day schools accept and honor secular degrees over Christian college degrees, sad as that may be. The Christian colleges urge all Christians to send their children to them for a Christian education. But do they only hire professors with Christian college degrees? Hardly. They are almost an exception in some Christian colleges and day schools. So we are not too consistent in our argument for "only" Christian school education.

A hundred years ago education was for the soul and character of a child. George Roche's A World Without Heroes  describes the need to educate Christian heroes who rise above their conditions to transcend even selflessness. Those were the days! Today we are struggling to produce literate graduates among our general student population.

Real education, with Scriptural morality, will civilize the "fallen nature" of man's proclivities. It will not save it or transform it. That is quite personal and individual. We must get back to this in the public schools. We can. Almost everyone you talk to wants to return to a fundamentally cohesive value-system based on the Christian (Biblical) ethic. Those controlling the system do not.

Francis Schaeffer and other solid Christian thinkers advocate that Christians infiltrate all areas of our culture and society -- the arts, education, and government. They believe in Christ's gospel of salting the earth and the power of light to dispel darkness. We and our children can do this, together, as God directs.

I'm not saying that Christian schools are a cop-out. I advocate them to all parents. If your children are in public schools, however immoral the system, neither you nor your children are made immoral by going there. You can change them and completely turn them around.

We do not advocate making Christian schools out of our public schools. We do advocate restoring our Western culture of traditional values (Christian) and academic excellence to our public schools. All 44,000,000 K-12 children will be evangelized by this process of morally civilizing the human spirit to a receptive plane of moral consciousness capable of receiving the incredible experience of "faith" -- producing the new birth in Christ Jesus. I call this "Impact Evangelism."

Our public schools are an old world institution relying on a "consensus" of values. That consensus is now lost in the fragmented public arena. The withdrawal of Christian influence has allowed every cult, religion, and philosophy that is foreign to our faith and culture to flood in. Christians have abdicated their mandate to be salt and light. We must not "sacrifice" our children -- we must nurture and train them in our homes, while they receive their formal education.

We have slowly merged into a Christian ghetto mentality. Blacks cry out for all black schools and colleges; gays and feminists want to rewrite the curriculum; Christians want their Christian agenda. In a word -- fragmentation is now a reality.

Can we restore to our public schools this Western culture of Judeo-Christian core values as that base of all positive productive education? The answer is a resounding, Yes! We are doing it. Many of our school districts are now coming closer to our ideal for education. To do less would be aiding in the demise of our Western (Christian) culture. Every Christian parent should be involved in this process -- not only to protect their own children (our number one priority) but to affect our entire society. The same is true for all Biblically based churches. Ironically, the non-Biblically based churches are the ones most involved. May God awaken and unify all evangelicals to "faith" not "fear." We can conquer the forces of evil and save our church children. But we must believe God. "For the wicked shall not rule the godly, lest the godly be forced to do wrong" (Ps. 125:3).

Christians today are condemned enough by the world. Let's not perpetuate the spirit of condemnation to one another by saying that we are immoral to send our children to public schools. Let us say that our public schools are immoral -- not parents (Christian or non-Christian) who send their children there. It is not immoral to send a child to public school, but it may not be the wisest thing to do, if another alternative is available.

We are all "in" the world (society), but we are urged in Scripture to be not "of" the world. Our children must learn that and live it. We must train them in that daily, in our homes, no matter where they go to school.

In summary, let me congratulate my brother colleague for his commitment to Biblical education for all children -- especially all Christian children. It would be more comfortable for me to be debating his side of the issue. But, nothing so important is simple.

My hope is that we Christians will be charitable to each other's views and totally committed to restoring good education to our public schools. It's the largest mission field in the world today. What a great victory it will be to win them back to Christian control (it only takes three out of five school board members to control an entire local system).

For that very large majority of Christians (ninety percent of all Christian families) who have their children in public schools, I would suggest: (1) Home school your children if you feel competent, both parents do not work, and you want the safest method for your children's education; (2) Put your children in a private school if it is available and you can afford it. But monitor everything carefully; (3) Keep your children in a public school, but go over every assignment and textbook, pointing out errors or misleading information. Train them in Christ's way at home and in church. Spend more time than most with your children. Keep your conscience clear! Walk in holiness. In His light may the joy of faith overcome your fears. Pray for every church to open a Christian school, if possible. Pray for God's blessing on all innocent children. Pray that men of God will weep for our fallen nation.

As much as I appreciate the gracious manner in which my brother has conducted himself in debate, I cannot say that he has effectively engaged with my arguments. Nevertheless, he did clearly answer one of my questions. With the reader's kind permission, I will respond to that answer in some detail; in the second part of this essay, I will make a series of brief responses to other miscellaneous points.

Dr. Simonds was clear that he did not advocate making the public schools into Christian schools, but rather that he was advocating a return to the traditional values of our Western culture, along with a return to academic excellence. To this proposal, I have a series of questions and responses.

First, where does the Bible tell us to fight to reestablish Western culture or traditional values? Obviously, the Bible is silent when it comes to any such mission. If II Cor. 10:4-5 contains our marching orders, and we agree it does, then we must note that every thought is to be brought into submission to Christ. We are commanded to bring nothing into submission to Western culture. In the Great Commission, we were not commanded to go into all the earth and make Aristotelian-Platonic-Judeo-Christians, baptizing them in the name of art, music and literature.

So, again, if we go into the public schools, and fight for certain "core values" do we do so as Christians, or as plain and ordinary Decent Folks? And what are these core values? Do they include the greatest commandment, i.e. that we love the true God with everything we have? If so, then we are fighting for tax-subsidized Christian schools. If not, then we have abandoned the core of our core values. I believe this dilemma illustrates a central problem in our debate; some of our definitions are not the same. I would argue that "core values" are those which are at the core of Biblical revelation. Dr. Simonds appears to be arguing that Christians should understand "core values" as those which Christians share with decent non-Christians.

Secondly, even if the reintroduction of traditional values were our mission, how is it possible to fight for the fruit without fighting for the tree? The Western culture which Dr. Simonds rightly wants to protect did not arise in our midst ex nihilo. It was the result of an explicit affirmation of Christianity proper. I have no problem with Dr. Simonds' desire to protect our great heritage; we part company on the appropriate means to that end. The tree is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not a traditional morality which is consistent in a general way with Christian morality.

Thirdly, how is it possible to think that such a civilizing of the public school kids is a precursor to evangelism? I am afraid that Dr. Simonds has it backwards. Evangelism results in civilization, and not the other way around. Dr. Simonds' words are worth studying closely. "...children will be evangelized by this process of morally civilizing the human spirit to a receptive plane of moral consciousness capable of receiving the incredible experience of 'faith' -- producing the new birth in Christ Jesus." But moral instruction of this kind will not prepare the ground for saving faith. Even if successful, it is more likely to produce self-righteous moralism than a realization of sinfulness, and need for a Savior. The Bible teaches that sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins. Civilizing "improvements" do not prepare a corpse for life any more than make-up applied by an undertaker prepares a man for the resurrection.

And now for some brief scattershot: Dr. Simonds concedes that the current moral tone in the public schools is horrendous, but this is not what makes them dangerous. I would object just as strongly to officially agnostic public schools which maintained high standards of discipline. We must never forget that prostitutes are closer to the kingdom of God than theologians; this is because prostitutes know they have a problem. It is easier to be misled by a false Savior before he has fallen on his face. In the same way, it was easier to be misled by public education before the fruit of the lie became so evident, as it has in the last few years. Public education in America in the past had high standards of discipline, etc. Consequently, more Christians were deceived at that time than are deceived now. The public schools then were more of a threat to the Christian faith.

My colleague appears to agree with David Hume that one cannot derive ought from is. In his second response, he acknowledges that statistics "do not prove something right or wrong, but they point out where we are." Nevertheless, Dr. Simonds appears to be trying to make some point with such statistics; they keep coming up. In his last response, he says, "However, ninety percent of our church children still go to public schools." I am quite prepared to grant the figure. But this simply means that we have persuaded a tithe, and have a lot of work before us.

Dr. Simonds says this: "Let us say our public schools are immoral -- not parents...who send their children there." But if the schools are immoral, then does no responsibility fall on parents who continue to send their kids? And if our goal is to turn things around, is it right to expose our children to such immorality in the meantime?

And lastly, congratulating the reader on his sight of land, I would argue that to say Christian parents are morally obligated to provide a Christian education for their children is not necessarily to perpetuate a "spirit of condemnation." I have argued my case without a legalistic spirit; my desire is to help parents with their awesome responsibilities, not to weigh them down with extraneous guilt. But to those parents who are working through this crucial issue, I say this: If these arguments are Biblical, then it is necessary to obey them. If not, then it is necessary to answer them.