Are you kidding me? Public school?

My own public high school experience was pretty mixed. I enjoyed plenty of extra-curriculars, such as peer mediation, student government, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, choir, and drama. And in all of this, I was surrounded by a very diverse cast of characters (pun intended).

At the same time, aside from antagonistic friends (which I loved because I could give it as well as take it), I also had antagonistic teachers who would ridicule my values and belittle me in public.

One was particularly oppressive. She had often shown great disdain for my faith and political opinions over the course of a semester. After catching me throwing out my gum at the beginning of class one day, she assigned me a several-hour long detention over an upcoming exam period. At the assigned time, I sat in her classroom. A little while later, she came in and told me she couldn't stay and I would have to give her another exam period. I couldn't make the latter period because of a prior obligation.

At the beginning of the next year, she confronted me and was particularly nasty (ironically, just after I gave a speech to the faculty in my role as president of "Character Counts") and told me that she was withholding my grade and wouldn't let me graduate until I gave her several days worth of detention. At this point, I got my parents (namely, Mama Bear) involved. The compromise was that the teacher would give me my grade (a "D" in my best subject), and I would spend two weeks of lunch periods with the kids who carved skulls into their desks.

A Christian student better come to expect such "soft persecution" in the public school system these days. In fact, I am sure the climate of intimidation is much worse. Unpopular opinions are often categorized as "harassment." And if you get branded with the "Scarlet B" (for bully), you could get bludgeoned with a variety of punishments--in effect, get bullied by the people in power.

But what separates this environment from the culture-at-large? The culture is irrational and intolerant for the most part. Pluralism is not merely a sociological fact, it is an obtrusive philosophical paradigm to which all must adhere or be accused of hate crimes. This may be overstating the case--most peers in any environment are quite decent, but one must always be on watch.

As teenagers, most children should be equipped for such a type of education. They have mastered the tools of learning and are able to employ those tools upon any subject matter. If they go to a public high school, they will have to use the tools to good effect, because even with AP classes, they will still get a pretty mediocre education.

And that is a price that I am willing to pay for children to develop their rhetoric in a semi-hostile environment. At this point, they don't need to worry about the actual education (aside from the massive time commitment). This will provide a training ground for them to engage very different worldviews with conviction, compassion, and charity. They will be pushed to stand upon their faith or have it swept away, but they certainly won't have the option to sit.

As a result, the perils that come with engaging other worldviews for the first time in college or the workplace will be largely mitigated. They will also learn that relationships with people outside of the Christian faith are often vibrant and lovely, even if challenging.

I was not educated well prior to high school and had no idea what a worldview was, let alone how to use my mind and heart to engage other worldviews. But I was a young Christian and unambiguous about what I believed. I would challenge teachers who taught opposing beliefs as fact. I often offended fellow students with my belief that Jesus Christ was truly the only path to salvation.

But about 200 or so of my classmates went to Church youth activities with me over the years--some of them quite regularly. They appreciated my love for them even when we disagreed. I was elected the vice president of my senior class of 450 students, not because I was a social butterfly (though I was), but because my classmates were willing to tolerate what I believed because I cared about them.

So, yes, if it be God's will, I will send my kids to a public high school, clothed in Christ and ready to learn how to bring their faith to bear upon the real world without being swallowed by the treachery of the real world (James 1:27).

Learning How to Fly

A wise parent once explained the concept of a "freedom funnel" to me. In parenting, it is important to have incredibly strict rules while a child is little. It is then important to start relaxing the rules bit by bit to give a child the room to grow in responsible freedom. It also serves as a sort of reward for showing responsibility. We entrust more to those who are responsible in the small things.

The converse principle is that rules are too relaxed when a child is little so that they do not learn to exercise their freedom responsibly. A parent will inevitably compensate once they see their now pre-teen slipping off the rails by belatedly tightening the funnel, which a child who is not used to rules will inevitably buck against.

(By the way, this wisdom came from a parent at Grace Church, which is a treasure trove of mature married couples and wise parenting, by God's grace.)

I saw this principle exemplified at a classical school, Ad Fontes Academy, where I taught Church history to ninth graders and helped coach cross country runners for the better part of a year. In this venue, I saw boys and girls of different races and socio-economic backgrounds show the intellectual acumen of college students (and often more so).

The classical model (which like home-schooling, is currently flourishing around the country) goes back to the medieval principles of education: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. "Grammar" refers to the tools of learning (the coat rack, if you will) that must be given to children at the earliest possible age. "Logic" naturally teaches them to employ such knowledge in incorporating, analyzing, and critiquing new information. "Rhetoric" refers to the ability to communicate such knowledge.

In practice, this meant starting a Church History class with a discussion on the philosophy of history. They would then write papers on questions like "Can the period of the early Church be considered a Golden Age? Explain." Not long after, they would engage in a spirited debate (where they all addressed each other by last names).

Dorothy Sayers, the masterful mystery writer and friend of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and other great thinkers, wrote a groundbreaking article on the need to go back to this classical model.

Ideally, a child will learn the grammar of learning in elementary school, attaining the tools to even self-educate, if necessary (which is the most common form of learning throughout human history). After home-schooling my child in elementary school, I would hope to send him to classical school during the middle school years. At that stage, he would still receive a phenomenal education, as well as have a broader forum in which to employ logic.

Many of my students were previously home-schooled, and now were thriving in this environment. One student was particularly brilliant and diligent, turning in collegiate-caliber research papers (with MLA footnotes), but now he also found that he enjoyed running cross country. I remember his pride, and that of his parents, as he realized that he could not only run five miles in one fell swoop, but speed up in the final mile and sprint over the final one hundred yards.

Classical schools allow your child to take the tools of learning and start employing them, along with providing him with the resources and opportunities that come with a larger community.

That said, it is an expensive option--one that later pays dividends in college scholarships, but expensive nonetheless. If I am not able to afford classical education for my child, would I opt for public education or continued home-schooling? I am really not sure. I believe home-schooling would offer a superior education (grammar), but public schooling would provide a wide and diverse forum through which these tools could be used in engaging others (rhetoric). I guess it would probably depend on where I felt my child stood with regard to employing logic.

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." (2 Cor. 10:5)

Laying a Foundation in Childhood

Even more important than teaching basic mathematics and reading skills to children is the imparting of a worldview. Basic beliefs concerning God, man, and the world are established in early childhood (though they are certainly subject to rejection later in life).

While teachers at your local elementary school may not be consciously teaching an Intro to Philosophy course, they are imparting a worldview to your children. Regardless of whether it is the worldview to which you adhere, the establishment of a worldview is the proper prerogative of parents (Deut. 6).

Not only is it their prerogative, but their responsibility. Somehow, many in our culture believe that parent cannot and should not "impose their values" on their children. But children will inevitably develop a worldview consistent with those who are most influential in their lives. They are not a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) that can only be painted upon at their own choice. They are the proverbial white sock tossed into the washer of colored clothing. They will quickly take on another color.

It is for this reason, first and foremost, that I believe the home to be the best venue for children in their early childhood years. This allows the parents to retain the mantle of influence and to not only start imparting a worldview to their children, but to give the broader tools of learning and wisdom needed to engage other people with other worldview and operate on a more substantive level.

As a secondary matter--a consideration that will weight against public schooling all the way through this series--public education had dramatically worsened in the past generation. Students must now take AP classes in high school to attain some of the basic skills required of their parents in elementary school. This matters most to me at the most tender ages. Even if I later send my children to public schools, I want the to have a robust intellectual foundation to go with their worldview.

I want to teach them basic philosophy, a classical language, civics, grammar, and reading comprehension in elementary school. I want to inculcate within them a love for learning, rather than a toleration of it. This will come, in part, through my own enjoyment of learning.

It will also come by allowing them to follow their creative pursuits in their elementary ages rather than following a standardized path. If I am teaching them about our Founders and little Nebuchadnezzar decides that he is fascinated by John Witherspoon, then I will assign him a project on Witherspoon and let him follow that rabbit trail to his heart's delight. Also, if he finishes an assignment early, I will either let him play or will assign him more work. I will not make him wait for others to catch up.

It is important to deal with relevant critiques of whatever my position is, and one such critique is that home-schooling often produces social awkwardness and narrow mindedness. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My initial response is that: (1) The priority in childhood is to impart a worldview, not social skills, (2) Children can form social skills with siblings just as well as with non--familial peers, and (3) whatever tendencies toward social awkwardness that remain can be mitigated by getting children involved in the community.

As for narrow mindedness, this can be offset by not only logic, but how to employ logic charitably. For example, everyone and everything must be given its due. Every person you engage has intrinsic worth and is worthy of both respect and love. Their arguments must be acknowledged, fairly represented, and given due consideration.

All of that said, and with my opinion laid out, I believe it important to acknowledge that sometimes, home-schooling and private schooling just aren't realistic options. They may not be affordable, or both parents need to work. Perhaps it is a single parent household, or there are behavioral needs that require additional expertise. Whatever the reason--even if there is no reason--what do you do as a parent to supplement public school teaching in a way that remedies its deficiencies?

First, you make sure that your child is sitting under the preaching and teaching of your Church. Preaching is God's means to not only instruct one's fallen thought patterns, but to transform them with real power. Likewise, teaching--especially catechizing--uses biblical truth, mediated through historical wisdom, to create that theological "coat rack" upon which all truth may be properly understood.

Second, you must supplement the role of the Church in developing your child's worldview with your own teaching. Perhaps take time each day to help your child not only with their homework, but to think through both their homework and social interactions in a wise and biblical manner. Ask them plenty of questions regarding their teachers' belief systems (which inevitably seep into their teaching--we can't ever cut off our core beliefs from anything else).

If Ms. Anderson tells you that the book you are reading means whatever you want it to mean, ask you child if the author of the book saw it that way. Ask them if the teddy bear is in fact a teddy bear and not a hippo just because they say so. Make sure they understand that part of reading comprehension is trying to understand the intent of the author, not simply falling back upon the desires of the reader. Draw them back to the Scriptures, where God speaks authoritatively and clearly. Our goal as Christians is to try to comprehend His truth, not replace His voice with our own. In the process, you are teaching your child to distinguish between objective truth and subjective intepretations--a must for interacting with learning material and others.

There is much more that could be said about these matters, but let is suffice to say that I prefer home-schooling in the early childhood years, but do not regard any other form of schooling as wrong or entirely detrimental to children. They simply require more work in terms of instilling a worldview, countering the vast influence of and exposure to a teacher's worldview, providing additional tools for learning, and exciting educational paths of interest.

The fundamental responsibility of Christian parents is to make their children "wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus," recognizing that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Of course, it was Timothy's mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois, who taught him these things.

Home School, Private School, or Public School? Pt.1

My wife and I have wrestled for a number of years with what type of schooling we would like our children to receive. We continue to wrestle.

For disclosure's sake, we both attended public schools for all of our childhood and teenage years. My wife went to a public college; I went to a private one. We also enjoyed some of the best that public education could offer. I grew up in a (generally) wealthy county with expansive advanced placement (AP) classes. My wife transferred into a top-notch magnet program in Seattle.

With ample time to reflect, there is much that we like and much that we dislike about the education we received at each stage. I have subsequently served in a classical school and had a decent opportunity to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. And as more and more evangelical Christians flock to home-schooling, we have spent most of our recent years interacting with adults who home school or were home-schooled.

This is the first post of five on the important issue of schooling. In this post, I will outline a few opening considerations. In next four posts, I will express my current inclination for childhood, pre-adolescent, adolescent, and young adult schooling, respectively. First, some basic considerations:

1) The Bible does not explicitly endorse a position. One could certainly infer a position based on the prerogatives of family, Church, and state in the Scriptures, but likely could go no further than inference. As a result, this is a matter of Christian liberty. If it is used as a litmus test for orthodoxy, then it is used wrong and in violation of Scripture (Gal. 5:1-2).

2) The state has a legitimate interest in the life of its people, in accordance with its mandate to maintain justice (Rom. 13). At the same time, the role of the state is subordinate to the role of the family and the role of the Church in the life of a child (Deut. 6; Matt. 28). Even if one traces the origins of the state to the city founded by Cain in Genesis 4, it still follows after a previously established family structure and relationship between God and His people (Gen. 1-2).

3) The schooling options are not mutually-exclusive. A home school parent can enroll their children in rec league sports and other extra-curricular activities. A public school parent can catechize and help shape a child's worldview in the (few) hours available alongside public school. The Church certainly should do this as well, especially on the Lord's Day.

4) One's choice in schooling for his/her child will be tied close to what one views to be the rightful domain of education. Should one institution cultivate a worldview, provide the tools for learning, and inculcate a sense of morality? Should these responsibilities be divvied up between state, parents, and Church?

For what it's worth, J. Gresham Machen opposed to the proposed Federal Department of Education back in his day. He told a Senate panel at the time that such an absorption of schooling by the state was acceptable in the contemporary societies of Mussolini's Italy and Lenin's Russia, but not in a society that still respected the primacy of parents in forming their children.

At the same time, he was not altogether opposed to some form of public schooling. But he was adamant that such institutions were inherently amoral and were not to inculcate morality in children. He thought that school prayer, for example, was very much a pagan activity.

In our day and age, let us be thankful that there are so many venues for learning. And let us also find comfort in the knowledge man's growth, either in common grace learning or in the faith, depends ultimately upon God's grace alone. The Father is the gracious giver of every good gift (James 1). And for those who have Christ, how will He not also give them all things?

A Call to Christian Suffering

My wife and I were thinking about Tiffany on the way home from our Army this weekend. This gal is a "deployment widow," raising a 16-month old on her own while her husband serves our country in Afghanistan for the next year.

From our brief conversations with Tiffany, it seems like she is one of the hundreds of thousands of deployment widows who slip through the cracks of society, unnoticed by most. But this is not a unique problem for deployment widows. Tiffany actually belongs to a group of tens of millions more of sufferers in our country who largely slip through the cracks.

Why do they slip through the cracks? Because suffering is not allowed in postmodern America. This is particularly ironic because the postmodern mindset seeks authenticity, which it usually boils down to pain, pleasure, and power.

Read Game of Thrones, for example, and watch as the rare person who clings to truth, morality, or goodness is dramatically killed off. Life in George R.R. Martin's series is all one big pursuit of power--a game of thrones--with pain always alongside and pleasure offering brief respites from the game and from the pain. Here's the irony: The average postmodern person (most youngish Americans) loves suffering in his books and shows because they depict reality, but he actually hates suffering in his reality. For him, there is nothing worse than suffering.

As Tiffany suffers, she will likely hear remarks such as "Couldn't your husband have gotten out of this deployment, considering your situation?" or "Why don't you all get out of the military?" Even worse, if she attends a church, she may hear "Perhaps God hasn't called you to this."

This is how we deal with suffering. Instead of helping someone navigate their suffering, we seek to remove the "cause" of the suffering. Fighting with your wife? Divorce her. Deployment hard? Get out of the military. We can't handle suffering in our society because we cannot explain it. We embrace it in theory, but rarely in experience.

We can't fathom that there are things worse than suffering. This is where postmodernism falls short as a philosophy. Because it views the world and man in terms of pain, pleasure, and power, it cannot fathom that there is something ultimate beyond these concepts. A husband bears with an unbearable wife because the bonds of love transcend his suffering. A soldier puts himself in harms way, and a wife endures a year of hell, because both country and battle buddies make their suffering worthwhile, even if miserable.

As in so many other areas, the wreckage of postmodern deconstructionism leaves plenty of opportunities for the claims of Christ to build shining new edifices of hope. Is community breaking down in our society? The Church can fill the void with love that transcends normal ties. Is society running away from suffering and from sufferings? The Church can embrace them, following in the footsteps of Her Savior.

But I wonder if we Christians have not spent to much time drinking the cultural Kool Aid in this regard. Reflect on how you regard the sufferer. Do you pawn the sufferer off on the pastor, much as we are prone to do with the politicians and the rich in our society? Do you stand next to the sufferer and complain about greed and social problems rather than helping him?

When you converse with the suffering, do you suffer with them? Do you weep and refrain from words? Or do you offer trite cliches about God's providence? Do you all them ample time to suffer, recognizing that it is fundamental to human existence in a broken world, or do you put their suffering on a stopwatch and tell them when to stop? Do you recognize the profundity of their suffering and cry out to the God who alone knows, or do you try to give them answers and fixes?

The Church has an incredible opportunity to embrace the suffering. But She must first embrace her own suffering. The reality is that I am not fine and you are not fine on a Sunday morning. I am always wrestling with one sin or another. There is always a festering wound somewhere in my heart in need of the divine Physician's healing touch.

Here are three ways in which Christ's Bride can seize this moment, in God's grace.

1) We must maintain a biblical view of suffering, not a cultural one. Suffering is not the fundamental problem in this world. It is a symptom of the greater disease of sin. Thus, suffering is not the ultimate enemy upon which we must wage war--it is sin. And God often uses suffering to sanctify His people--exposing sin, enabling us to trust Him, and pointing us toward our heavenly home (Heb. 11). There are worse things than suffering, but there is nothing better than God's grace by Word and by Spirit, often shared through fellow believers, to comfort us along the way.

2) We must deepen the bonds of Christian fellowship by suffering together. In my years of counseling soldiers, I have noticed countless interpersonal conflicts between two people who are oblivious to each other's suffering. What if they suffered together? I come home and I notice how many wives have been suffering alone? What if they suffered together? Likewise, I know a multitude of suffering believers, who, like military wives, live on isolated islands of suffering. What if they suffered together? How much richer would our bonds of fellowship be?

3) We must seek out and love the suffering. By this, I mean we must reach out to all people, recognizing that they are fellow sufferers. This might be the single mom or the homeless veteran, or it might be the wealthy, white suburbanite. We all suffer. If we regard each person with whom we relate as a fellow sufferer, then we will be more compassionate and more eager to make than an object of love rather than an object of a sales pitch.

If I am honest with myself, I will try to pawn off the suffering on someone else. Why don't the rich give more to the poor? Why won't the government do more to help? Can't other paid professionals and pastors do more of this laborious work? But Jesus hasn't called me to abdicate responsibility, but to seize it in gratitude for what He did for my sake.

He did not shortcut His suffering when called to drink the cup of God's wrath down to the dregs. He did not give in to Satan's temptations to avoid the cross. He intentionally suffered for our sake.

So with joy in my heart--even with tears in my eyes--I will strive to not shortcut the suffering of others because Jesus did not shortcut His own for my sake (James 1; Heb. 12).

Someone is guilty. Is it God or is it you?

(Cain, abdicating his responsibility before God.)

A crime has been committed. You know it, for the evidences are all around you.

The world is broken. Natural disasters abound. Diseases run rampant. Mankind is broken. There is lying, murdering, adultery, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, etc. The data is clear, as the author of Ecclesiastes meticulously shows: Man and the world he lives in are both fundamentally broken. Now, who is to blame?

You, like most of mankind, would probably like to blame God. "How could a good God," you might argue, "allow people to suffer?" Of you might ask why God would allow mankind the freedom to rebel against Him, and thus fall into an estate of sin and misery? Was there an inherent defect in God's creation? If so, God is clearly guilty. Any line of blame of this sort sees the problem of evil as fundamentally a metaphysical problem (in other words, the problem is with the One who stands over and above the physical realm).

If you're right, then congratulations. You have successfully explained the origins of evil and are now entitled to speak ill of the God who designed this world as a cruel joke. But it won't make you feel much better. In fact, by assigning the blame for the broken world and human race to God, you have effectively abdicated all responsibility for yourself. Eat, drink, and (try to) be merry, for tomorrow you die.

At first glance, you may not think that you subscribe to the idea that evil is a metaphysical problem. No, you have convinced yourself that God is a loving God who accepts people for who they are. And on balance, knowing that you are more good than bad, you believe that God will accept you into Heaven at the end. How could He not? He is a loving God.

But is this really the God you believe in?

You concede that "Nobody is perfect" and that something is fundamentally wrong with the world. Why is this the "normal" state of affairs? Why is "imperfection," to vastly understate the problem with both man and the world, in this world and why does it continue? Whoever authored this glitch in the system of man, this hole in the fabric of creation, is to blame.

This clearly can't be man, according to your view. Man might be imperfect, but he is still fundamentally good. He can't be guilty of this crime. For if evil is truly a moral problem, then man literally has hell to pay. Introducing such poison into the bloodstream of this world would clearly be a crime against the Creator of this world. And you would need to throw the balance sheet out. There's no hope if you bear such a weighty crime.

As you acquit man (and yourself, in the process), you are left with only one option: A cruel God. The problem is either moral--with mankind transgressing God's law and bearing overwhelming guilt--or it is metaphysical. Either man is the culprit here or God. And in your eagerness to acquit man (and yourself) because he is fundamentally good, you are unwittingly calling God a monster. And if He is a monster, then He is not the loving God who accepts you for who you are.

But you wouldn't go that far. Some might think God a monster, if He is real, for what He has done to this world. But not you. You know that the destruction of God's character would mean the destruction of hope.

You also know differently. God's power and holiness are clearly on display in creation and within your own moral conscience, so that you are left without excuse regarding the existence and character of our God (Rom. 1).

The crime lies squarely at the feet of man. Evil in the created order and in the heart of man is the responsibility of man. And God, who is blameless, is thus justified in judging mankind for this affront (Ps. 14). And God is indeed holy and just and will not allow the guilty to go unpunished (Ex. 34).

Your only hope is that love exists in the heart of this holy God. Not a shallow love that "accepts you for who you are" or admits that you are a "good person at heart," for you know that you are not a good person at heart if evil is a moral problem. What you desperately need is a perfect love that would find a means of exhibiting perfect grace for your sake.

Just as man despoiled himself and this world and thus made himself a traitor against God (Gen. 1; Rom. 5), he is unable to save himself. Only God can save. But is God able and willing to save?

The willingness is seen when Christ approaches the tomb of Lazarus (John 11). Though He was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, He cried out in great anger and anguish (the imagery of a horse's nostrils flaring). He was there as the world was created through Him in perfect beauty. He was there when the rebellion of man went down. And now He is looking upon the tomb--a marker of all that went wrong with mankind in this world. Then He calls Lazarus from the dead.

The ability to save is seen in Christ's loneliness to the cross, where we discover how exactly a perfectly just and merciful God would simultaneously let the guilty go unpunished and not let the guilty go unpunished. The Son of God, incarnate as man, would willingly bear mankind's sin upon Himself, though He was sinless (2 Cor. 5) and take the cup of wrath that the guilty are to drink to the dregs for Himself (Ps. 11; Luke 22). His perfect righteousness--man unspoiled--would then be credited to the account of all those who would believe (Rom. 5).

In other words, the God you are prone to blame for evil, through He created the world good, Himself dealt with the real problem, the moral problem, by becoming the moral problem.

The problem of evil is not God's problem, but your problem. The problem is such that it will leave hopeless and condemned unless the God who is justified to judge is willing to justify you. It is time to stop accusing God and acquitting man. It is time for you to stop abdicating responsibility. Take responsibility for your sin and its guilt and embrace the God-man, Jesus Christ, who took this sin and guilt and nailed it to the cross.

You will never be satisfied otherwise. It feels good to acquit yourself, but in the process, you are condemning God as a monster and destroying your hope. Only in bowing the knee in sorrow over your sin and recognition of Jesus Christ as your Savior from sin will you have hope. Will you bow the knee, knowing that in Christ alone, you find truth, hope, life, and love?