What About Christian Schools?
Phil Lancaster
As
a father who has increasingly come to believe that home education is the best
method of raising children, I am very interested in the reasoning of those who
support public schooling or private Christian education.
Recently
I saw a book called The Christian School, by Noel Weeks, and I bought it
in order to find out the biblical basis for sending children to Christian
schools. What I found was some great reasons for home education!
In
his first chapter, entitled "Why Schooling?", the author raises the
question of the basis for Christian schools. He begins with this statement:
"Part of the problem is that the Bible does not mention schools. Hence
Christians have a tendency to accept what is believed and practiced in the
society around them." This is true.
He
continues: "In both the Old Testament and the New Testament the
responsibility for the training of children is placed upon the parents."
Support is offered from Deuteronomy 6:4-7 and Ephesians 6:4, and additional
Scripture is presented to demonstrate the nature of the training parents are
supposed to give their children. Among other things, it is to be
"comprehensive in its scope," meaning that it must be carried on
"all the time. There is no part of the day's activities upon which the
truth of God does not impinge."
What
about the role of the church in education? The author acknowledges the church's
educational role since the children are part of the congregation, but he again
affirms, "Whenever Scripture singles out people as responsible for the
training of children it places that responsibility upon the parents."
Again, "...when both Testaments deal specifically with the training of
children, then they give the parents that task."
In
a section with the heading "The Bible and Schools" Mr. Weeks
discusses various arguments that are sometimes heard as to whether there were
schools in biblical times and how that may impinge on God's direction for us
today. The bottom line, he concludes, is that we cannot use the possible existence
of something the Bible does not even mention to put aside what the Bible
clearly sets before us. "Hence we have to try to work out the implications
of what we actually find in Scripture."
This
brings him to consider home education. "Obviously those who argue that
parents should educate their own children are trying to take seriously the
biblical teaching." He even sets aside the arguments of those who do not
believe parents can do the job. "We must not use our supposed incompetence
or lack of time as an excuse for disobedience to a biblical command. If we have
problems and difficulties in obeying the commandment, then we should seek ways
to overcome them. Our responsibilities as parents cannot be simply brushed
aside."
He
even dismisses the broad assertion of some that parents are simply not
competent to teach in a day of expanding knowledge. Rather, he writes,
"Some educators have built a mystique around education to justify their
own employment to train teachers." His conclusion: "...then we would
say that most parents could teach their children. They may have to do a little
study themselves but they could do it."
By
now as I read this I am asking myself: What basis then is there for promoting
schooling instead of home education? He has, in effect, proven an able
apologist for homeschooling. So I read on.
As
to the obstacles to home education:
The greater problem is time. This
problem particularly concerns fathers. For while Scripture does refer to the
role of both parents in training the child (Prov. 1:8) there is a definite
tendency to place particular responsibility on the father (e.g. Eph. 6:4). We
might wish for a return to a situation in which small farming or cottage
industry gave men time to be with their families while working and considerable
flexibility in their hours of work. Though it may seem like an impossible
dream, we as Christians need to think and work towards a work style that is
more conducive to family life.
However, in the interim, we must
find a way of reconciling our need to work to support our families and our need
to train our children comprehensively in the ways of the Lord. Mothers can fill
some of that gap but they will not fill all of it.
When we as Christians have
difficulty in meeting our responsibilities we naturally turn to our fellow
believers for help.
This
is the point at which he introduces the need for Christian schools. They are a
means of parents helping each other to fulfill their responsibilities, though
he admits that "most Christian schools do not meet this ideal. There is a
strong tendency for them to ape the state schools in which the parents
effectively hand over the children to the 'expert' teacher and have no say or
role in education."
Did
you follow the reasoning? Fathers are busy supporting the family and mothers
cannot do the job by themselves, so we need Christian schools, even though most
of them reinforce the tendency of parents to abdicate their responsibilities.
But
all his own arguments, including his final appeal for working toward patterns
that are more conducive to family life, should lead to another conclusion: we
should make whatever sacrifice necessary to do what God has called us as
parents to do. We cannot just "brush aside" the responsibility
Scripture gives us. Again, "If we have problems and difficulties in
obeying the commandment, then we should seek ways to overcome them." We
cannot allow a "lack of time as an excuse for disobedience to a biblical
command." Yes, exactly!
Christian
schools are a commendable alternative to the degenerate state schools, but they
are not (even according to this advocate of them) the ideal. Fathers should
seek to overcome whatever impediments keep them from training their own
children. God's ordained educational institution is the family.