A Christian Philosophy of Education - The Government Schools

[Bono]

www.reformationonline.com/phil_education_pt3.htm

A Christian Philosophy of Education (Part 3)

Gordon H. Clark | The government schools

The early American colleges were distinctly Christian institutions. But the public school system, unlike the colleges, was not so inspired. On the other hand, the public schools were not intended to be irreligious. In the readers of our grandparents’ time, God and Jesus Christ were mentioned. Today no such references can be found in the books of the public schools. The reason is not hard to find. The public schools were founded with the idea of not favoring one religion above another, and the result is that they now favor no religion at all. They are completely secularized.

Originally the public schools, while not supposed to favor one Christian denomination above another, were not intended to attack Christianity. The idea was that they should be neutral. And because the majority of Protestants believed the promises of the schoolmen that they would not attack religion, the Protestants did not found primary schools as the Romanists did. Now it is clear that the Romanists adopted the wiser course of action because the promises of the schoolmen were soon to be broken.

Today Christianity is attacked all through the public school system. Reports from parents say that the evolutionary denial of the creation of the world by God is taught to the children of the second grade. How can a child of seven or eight stand up against an organized attack of the theistic worldview? How can parents protect their children? The public school makes no pretense of being neutral in religious matters, and when a parent here or there protests, he is promptly ridiculed and squelched. The notion of religious liberty, or even of the toleration of Christianity—that is, the original claim to neutrality—is not a part of the schoolmen's mental equipment.

Mention has already been made of the exclusion of Bible reading from the public schools. The result has been a generation of children who are handicapped in the English language and literature. It is an incontrovertible fact that the English Bible has had a greater influence on our language, our literature, our civilization, our morals, than any other book. The children who are deprived of the Bible are culturally deprived, as well as religiously deprived. Someone has well said that knowledge of the Bible without a college education is of more value than a college education without knowledge of the Bible. In view of this fact, the prohibition of Bible reading is acutely significant of the hatred the public schools, and a large section of our society, have for Christianity. Books attacking Christianity are not illegal. Teachers can deny God, creation, and providence; but the law forbids them to recommend Christianity.

Since the cultural deprivation of this policy is so obvious, some of the educators want to teach the Bible as literature. This reintroduction of the Bible into the schools might also allay some of the criticism. It may turn out, however, that the Bible as literature will be worse than no Bible at all. Will the Bible be taught as divine literature or as human literature—mere literature, and not revelation? In one school where this was tried, the teacher required the pupils to write a paper. She was very flexible in her requirement: Each student could choose any part of the Bible for his subject. One little girl asked if she might write on Isaiah. The teacher asked, Do you mean first Isaiah or second Isaiah? Thus the teaching of the Bible as literature becomes an attack on its veracity. It will be used; it is being used, to undermine Christianity.

When public schools first became popular, the Protestants generally were deceived by the specious promises of the public school people. They thought that if they maintained Christian colleges, the primary schools could be entrusted to the state. But not all the Protestants were deceived by these false promises not to attack Christianity. The Lutheran Church and the Christian Reformed people early established primary schools for their children. They believed that the influence of the Christian home and the preaching of the Christian church should be strengthened by a Christian school system. But both the Lutherans and the Christian Reformed, with their European background, have remained somewhat closed societies as it were; and unfortunately they have exercised little influence, in this respect at least, on the rest of American Protestantism. There was one man, however, among the English-speaking American churches who saw the implication of the public school system; he warned of what was to follow, but his warning went unheeded. It is interesting, sadly interesting, to read his warning today, now that ninety years have proved him to be right. For it was in lectures given prior to 1890 that A. A. Hodge made the predictions now to be quoted.

In his Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, page 283, he wrote:

    A comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social, and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.

Two pages before, he had written:

    It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the atheists or agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of Atheism which the world has ever seen.

What A. A. Hodge did not see, at least what he did not explicitly say, is that although the irreligious have seized the right to exclude Christianity, the Christians are denied the right to exclude attacks on Christianity. There is no neutrality.

Obviously the schools are not Christian. Just as obviously they are not neutral. The Scriptures say that the fear of the Lord is the chief part of knowledge; but the schools, by omitting all reference to God, give the pupils the notion that knowledge can be had apart from God. They teach in effect that God has no control of history, that there is no plan of events that God is working out, that God does not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. Aside from definite anti-Christian instruction to be discussed later, the public schools are not, never were, can never be, neutral. Neutrality is impossible. Let one ask what neutrality can possibly mean when God is involved. How does God judge the school system, which says to him, "O God, we neither deny nor assert thy existence; and O God, we neither obey nor disobey thy commandments; we are strictly neutral." Let no one fail to see the point: The school system that ignores God teaches its pupils to ignore God; and this is not neutrality. It is the worst form of antagonism, for it judges God to be unimportant and irrelevant in human affairs. This is atheism.

[Gabu]

Today Christianity is attacked all through the public school system.

Oh dear.  What kind of horrible attacks?

Reports from parents say that the evolutionary denial of the creation of the world by God is taught to the children of the second grade. How can a child of seven or eight stand up against an organized attack of the theistic worldview?

Evolution?  God, no!  Evolution goes against the Bible!  Clearly teaching something that goes against the Bible is an intolerable attack on religion, even if it has plenty of scientific evidence behind it!  Evolution is so gosh darned atheistic, even though it makes no claims about the existence of a god whastsoever and indeed is not at all incompatible with the existence of a god!

Mention has already been made of the exclusion of Bible reading from the public schools. The result has been a generation of children who are handicapped in the English language and literature. It is an incontrovertible fact that the English Bible has had a greater influence on our language, our literature, our civilization, our morals, than any other book.

Damn straight, even though no evidence of such a completely unobvious assertion is given!

The children who are deprived of the Bible are culturally deprived, as well as religiously deprived. Someone has well said that knowledge of the Bible without a college education is of more value than a college education without knowledge of the Bible.

Praise Jesus, this author sees the light as long as we ignore the fact that this statement is patently ridiculous and that you can't do anything practical with knowledge of the Bible!  We should drop education and just teach the Bible 24/7!

Since the cultural deprivation of this policy is so obvious, some of the educators want to teach the Bible as literature.

HALLELUJAH!  The public school system is saved!  The Bible will be taught after all!

It may turn out, however, that the Bible as literature will be worse than no Bible at all.

WHAT?  Please continue so we can put the fear of GOD in the children's hearts!

Will the Bible be taught as divine literature or as human literature—mere literature, and not revelation?

GOOD QUESTION, because darn it, we sure should teach the Bible as divine revelation in school, as this would definitely advance the religious liberty that the writer claims to desire if we ignore the fact that this is retarded!

In one school where this was tried, the teacher required the pupils to write a paper. She was very flexible in her requirement: Each student could choose any part of the Bible for his subject. One little girl asked if she might write on Isaiah. The teacher asked, Do you mean first Isaiah or second Isaiah? Thus the teaching of the Bible as literature becomes an attack on its veracity.

I HAVE NO GODDAMN CLUE WHAT THE HELL THIS PERSON IS TALKING ABOUT ANYMORE BUT PRAISE JESUS ANYWAY

I'M NOW GOING TO WRITE FIVE MORE PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO READ

YOU GO GIRL

[KEmperor]

I was going to respond, but Gabu hit most of the points nicely.

[Colin]

When did you become a theocrat Bono? When did you become a proponent of bible reading in schools? I would expect this from jmfcst not from you. I mean, come on, teaching the bible in school as devine revelation, believing that children's English scores are directly related to their knowledge of the bible, and that all people should be educated as Christians. Bono, you can't really agree with this.

As a libertarian you should hold choice as a major feature of any good system of government, I think that's one of the basic tenents of libertarianism, however what this does is destroy choice through teaching children only through a Christian perspective. What if I do not want my child to have bible reading and religion classes all day? What if I want him to learn about a scientifically proven theory like evolution? If all schools are like this then there is no choice, you either toe the line of Christian theology as propogated in these schools, which seems to be a rather fundamentalist vision of Christian theology, or you learn it anyway.

Damn cultish Calvinism.

[afleitch]

Besides Bible Study is a teaching tool of only some protestant denominations; many choose not to and as for Catholics there has been a traditional emphasis on not studying the bible at ones own personal leisure! Why should one interpretation of what it means to practice a faith be exhaulted above all others in a public school system of all places?

[Bono]

When did you become a theocrat Bono? When did you become a proponent of bible reading in schools? I would expect this from jmfcst not from you. I mean, come on, teaching the bible in school as devine revelation, believing that children's English scores are directly related to their knowledge of the bible, and that all people should be educated as Christians. Bono, you can't really agree with this.

As a libertarian you should hold choice as a major feature of any good system of government, I think that's one of the basic tenents of libertarianism, however what this does is destroy choice through teaching children only through a Christian perspective. What if I do not want my child to have bible reading and religion classes all day? What if I want him to learn about a scientifically proven theory like evolution? If all schools are like this then there is no choice, you either toe the line of Christian theology as propogated in these schools, which seems to be a rather fundamentalist vision of Christian theology, or you learn it anyway.

Damn cultish Calvinism.

While I don't agree with everything this person is saying, I posted this mainly becuase of one point I do agree with: public schools aren't neutral on religion. They actively promote secular humanism and anti-theism.  That thing about the "first isaiah" and "second isaiah" is a good example. While conservative scholars view the book of Isaiah as a single unit composed in the 8th century BC, liberal "scholars", due to their bias against predictive prophecy, divide it in first isaiah, second isaiah and third isaiah. The first siaiah corresponding to chapters 1-39, and being from the 8th century, the second chapters 40-55 from the 6th century, and chapters 56-66 from the post-exile period.  That was a good example of a direct atack on the Bible.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I was going to respond, but Gabu hit most of the points nicely.

[Speed of Sound]

When did you become a theocrat Bono? When did you become a proponent of bible reading in schools? I would expect this from jmfcst not from you. I mean, come on, teaching the bible in school as devine revelation, believing that children's English scores are directly related to their knowledge of the bible, and that all people should be educated as Christians. Bono, you can't really agree with this.

As a libertarian you should hold choice as a major feature of any good system of government, I think that's one of the basic tenents of libertarianism, however what this does is destroy choice through teaching children only through a Christian perspective. What if I do not want my child to have bible reading and religion classes all day? What if I want him to learn about a scientifically proven theory like evolution? If all schools are like this then there is no choice, you either toe the line of Christian theology as propogated in these schools, which seems to be a rather fundamentalist vision of Christian theology, or you learn it anyway.

Damn cultish Calvinism.

While I don't agree with everything this person is saying, I posted this mainly becuase of one point I do agree with: public schools aren't neutral on religion. They actively promote secular humanism and anti-theism.  That thing about the "first isaiah" and "second isaiah" is a good example. While conservative scholars view the book of Isaiah as a single unit composed in the 8th century BC, liberal "scholars", due to their bias against predictive prophecy, divide it in first isaiah, second isaiah and third isaiah. The first siaiah corresponding to chapters 1-39, and being from the 8th century, the second chapters 40-55 from the 6th century, and chapters 56-66 from the post-exile period.  That was a good example of a direct atack on the Bible.

Splitting it up is a direct attack on it?

DI\/1DE AND C0NK3R MOTHERF***ER!

[Gabu]

While I don't agree with everything this person is saying, I posted this mainly becuase of one point I do agree with: public schools aren't neutral on religion. They actively promote secular humanism and anti-theism.  That thing about the "first isaiah" and "second isaiah" is a good example. While conservative scholars view the book of Isaiah as a single unit composed in the 8th century BC, liberal "scholars", due to their bias against predictive prophecy, divide it in first isaiah, second isaiah and third isaiah. The first siaiah corresponding to chapters 1-39, and being from the 8th century, the second chapters 40-55 from the 6th century, and chapters 56-66 from the post-exile period.  That was a good example of a direct atack on the Bible.

If that's a "direct" attack on the Bible, I'd love to see what an indirect attack is, because that seems ridiculously obscure.

[Colin]

While I don't agree with everything this person is saying, I posted this mainly becuase of one point I do agree with: public schools aren't neutral on religion. They actively promote secular humanism and anti-theism.  That thing about the "first isaiah" and "second isaiah" is a good example. While conservative scholars view the book of Isaiah as a single unit composed in the 8th century BC, liberal "scholars", due to their bias against predictive prophecy, divide it in first isaiah, second isaiah and third isaiah. The first siaiah corresponding to chapters 1-39, and being from the 8th century, the second chapters 40-55 from the 6th century, and chapters 56-66 from the post-exile period.  That was a good example of a direct atack on the Bible.

If that's a "direct" attack on the Bible, I'd love to see what an indirect attack is, because that seems ridiculously obscure.

I was just about to say that. If breaking up a book into three parts is a direct attack I think we're getting a little testy.

[Everett]

Splitting Isaiah into three separate books is a direct attack on the Bible now? WTF? I honestly don't understand how that constitutes a direct attack; if the process somehow mangled the original meaning of the book, then perhaps I could see your point.

I have no personal experience with public schools, so I don't know anything about this supposed active promotion of secular humanism. However, if someone has issues with how public schools handle the topic of religion, there are always alternatives. It's impossible for anyone (public schools included) to be completely unbiased.

[Gabu]

I honestly don't understand how that constitutes a direct attack

I honestly don't understand how it even constitutes an attack at all.  If it's a historical fact that the book was written in three separate time periods, then I don't see what the big deal is, and if the book is nonetheless intact despite the divisions in it, I fail to see how it matters even if it isn't a historical fact.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Our local public high school offers a pair of Bible as literature classes as electives.  Given that the Bible is something that any culturally literate Westerner should have read at least once, I certainly have no problem with these courses as long as they stay out of the doctrinal issues.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Our local public high school offers a pair of Bible as literature classes as electives.  Given that the Bible is something that any culturally literate Westerner should have read at least once, I certainly have no problem with these courses as long as they stay out of the doctrinal issues.

[Alcon]

Our local public high school offers a pair of Bible as literature classes as electives.  Given that the Bible is something that any culturally literate Westerner should have read at least once, I certainly have no problem with these courses as long as they stay out of the doctrinal issues.

I agree.  Our school books also use Biblical stories as examples.

It also uses the standard "cultural experiences"/ethnic-specific stories, but I don't mind.  If it gets minorities more interested in reading in school, whatever.  It's not like they are any worse than the stories they'd pick if they weren't looking for cultural diversity anyway.

I think the curriculum complaints presented are oftentimes a little overblown.

[Bono]

I honestly don't understand how that constitutes a direct attack

I honestly don't understand how it even constitutes an attack at all.  If it's a historical fact that the book was written in three separate time periods, then I don't see what the big deal is, and if the book is nonetheless intact despite the divisions in it, I fail to see how it matters even if it isn't a historical fact.

But it is no such thing. There is actually a great deal of continuity between the variously assigned sections of Isaiah, and now the liberals are trying to  explain away this continuity in terms of a final redactor who smoothed things over and made Isaiah look more like a single-authored work, in some places using earlier material from the time of the original Isaiah, thus offering an explanation for signs of early composition such as the antiquity of the Hebrew and the references to idolatry which would be anachronistic if the book were a later composition. Talk about molding the theory to preserve the paradigm.

However, the real "problem" for the liberals lies in these verses:
Isaiah 44:28That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 45:1Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

These are a prophecy of the Medo-Persian king Cyrus - he who sent the Jews home from their Babylonian trials and authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Pretty strong and specific stuff if authentic. This   is what leads them to date this part of the book later. It all boils down, of course, to a denial of predictive prophecy, and barring recovery of a manuscript dating earlier than Cyrus, all either side can do is stick by their presumptions.

However, the book begins with these words:
Isaiah 1:1The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.


Saying that parts of the book date from the 6th century BC and later is attacking its veracity, period.

[Gabu]

But it is no such thing. There is actually a great deal of continuity between the variously assigned sections of Isaiah, and now the liberals are trying to  explain away this continuity in terms of a final redactor who smoothed things over and made Isaiah look more like a single-authored work, in some places using earlier material from the time of the original Isaiah, thus offering an explanation for signs of early composition such as the antiquity of the Hebrew and the references to idolatry which would be anachronistic if the book were a later composition. Talk about molding the theory to preserve the paradigm.

However, the real "problem" for the liberals lies in these verses:
Isaiah 44:28That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 45:1Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

These are a prophecy of the Medo-Persian king Cyrus - he who sent the Jews home from their Babylonian trials and authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Pretty strong and specific stuff if authentic. This   is what leads them to date this part of the book later. It all boils down, of course, to a denial of predictive prophecy, and barring recovery of a manuscript dating earlier than Cyrus, all either side can do is stick by their presumptions.

However, the book begins with these words:
Isaiah 1:1The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Saying that parts of the book date from the 6th century BC and later is attacking its veracity, period.

If you feel that your religion as a whole is direly threatened by someone who dares question the history behind a section of it, and if you would immediately presume that anyone who does so is simply trying to "explain away" its contents, you really need to re-evaluate how seriously you take things.  Is your religion really that weak that it could be threatened in such a way?  Perhaps your tinfoil hat is a little too tight?

[Bono]

But it is no such thing. There is actually a great deal of continuity between the variously assigned sections of Isaiah, and now the liberals are trying to  explain away this continuity in terms of a final redactor who smoothed things over and made Isaiah look more like a single-authored work, in some places using earlier material from the time of the original Isaiah, thus offering an explanation for signs of early composition such as the antiquity of the Hebrew and the references to idolatry which would be anachronistic if the book were a later composition. Talk about molding the theory to preserve the paradigm.

However, the real "problem" for the liberals lies in these verses:
Isaiah 44:28That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 45:1Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

These are a prophecy of the Medo-Persian king Cyrus - he who sent the Jews home from their Babylonian trials and authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Pretty strong and specific stuff if authentic. This   is what leads them to date this part of the book later. It all boils down, of course, to a denial of predictive prophecy, and barring recovery of a manuscript dating earlier than Cyrus, all either side can do is stick by their presumptions.

However, the book begins with these words:
Isaiah 1:1The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Saying that parts of the book date from the 6th century BC and later is attacking its veracity, period.

If you feel that your religion as a whole is direly threatened by someone who dares question the history behind a section of it, and if you would immediately presume that anyone who does so is simply trying to "explain away" its contents, you really need to re-evaluate how seriously you take things.  Is your religion really that weak that it could be threatened in such a way?  Perhaps your tinfoil hat is a little too tight?

The problem is not daring to question, though that is a nice strawman. The problem is teaching as absolutely true and proven beyond a reasonable doubt things that aren't so at all, without ever presenting oposing viewpoints. I have the knowledge to be able to resist this indoctrination, but most christian young people don't.

[JSojourner]

Today Christianity is attacked all through the public school system.

Oh dear.  What kind of horrible attacks?

Umm...you mean you don't know?  Well, here's the list of things our liberal government, media and society are doing to Christianity...

1.  You can't find a church ANYWHERE.  They have all been closed.
2.  You never see those Jesus fish or Christian bumper stickers on cars like you used to in the good old days.
3.  Christian radio and TV are just a distant memory.
4.  You have to travel miles, sometimes across several states, to find a religious bookstore.  Lord knows, you'll NEVER find a copy of "Left Behind" for sale in some pagan center of devil worship like Borders.
5.  Candidates for office in both parties do everything they can to hide their Christianity.  They never mention God or Jesus, even if it's just to win votes.

Of course, by now, you realize I am speaking tongue-in-cheek.  As a Christian -- and one with a long history in Evangelicalism -- I can't tell you how sickened and offended I am at all the whining, bitching and moaning going on in the conservative wing of most churches.  To say Christians are persecuted in the United States is nothing less that spit in the faces of Christians who live with REAL persecution in North Korea, Iran, Libya or Uzbekistan.  But to listen to charlatans like James Dobson, D. James Kennedy or Pat Robertson, you'd think Christianity was under attack right here. 

Josef Goebbels said, "Repeat the lie often enough, and no matter how outlandish, the masses will believe." 

[Colin]

Today Christianity is attacked all through the public school system.

Oh dear.  What kind of horrible attacks?

pagan center of devil worship like Borders.

Hey I go to the one true pagan center of devil worship, Barnes and Noble.

[ilikeverin]

But it is no such thing. There is actually a great deal of continuity between the variously assigned sections of Isaiah, and now the liberals are trying to  explain away this continuity in terms of a final redactor who smoothed things over and made Isaiah look more like a single-authored work, in some places using earlier material from the time of the original Isaiah, thus offering an explanation for signs of early composition such as the antiquity of the Hebrew and the references to idolatry which would be anachronistic if the book were a later composition. Talk about molding the theory to preserve the paradigm.

However, the real "problem" for the liberals lies in these verses:
Isaiah 44:28That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 45:1Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

These are a prophecy of the Medo-Persian king Cyrus - he who sent the Jews home from their Babylonian trials and authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Pretty strong and specific stuff if authentic. This   is what leads them to date this part of the book later. It all boils down, of course, to a denial of predictive prophecy, and barring recovery of a manuscript dating earlier than Cyrus, all either side can do is stick by their presumptions.

However, the book begins with these words:
Isaiah 1:1The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Saying that parts of the book date from the 6th century BC and later is attacking its veracity, period.

If you feel that your religion as a whole is direly threatened by someone who dares question the history behind a section of it, and if you would immediately presume that anyone who does so is simply trying to "explain away" its contents, you really need to re-evaluate how seriously you take things.  Is your religion really that weak that it could be threatened in such a way?  Perhaps your tinfoil hat is a little too tight?

The problem is not daring to question, though that is a nice strawman. The problem is teaching as absolutely true and proven beyond a reasonable doubt things that aren't so at all, without ever presenting oposing viewpoints. I have the knowledge to be able to resist this indoctrination, but most christian young people don't.

Since when are we ever taught anything about the origins of obscure, random Bible verses?  And what on earth does that have to do with public schools?