Whoever Controls the Schools

...rules the world. It is an old saying I once heard. One of the benifits of Presbyterianism is our belief in the covenant community, and the idea that children should be raised and educated in the covenant community. However, for California parents, this may be a right not guaranteed for much longer. Apparently, there were charges of abuse in one Christian household because they spanked their children, and, upon further investigation, they found that they were homeschooled, and they challanged whether or not homeschooling was consistent with the laws of the state of California. Apparently, children ages 6 to 18 to be enrolled in school, and so, the homeschooling parents started a private school which allowed parents to teach at home. Hence, the parents became the teachers for the school. Thus, it was fully complying with the laws of the state. However, for how long this will be true is unsure.

First of all, I am absolutely tired of hearing how spanking is child abuse. Now, we do need to clarify. Some forms of spanking are child abuse. For instance, spanking out of anger, or spanking every time there is a small little dispute. Such is not God-honoring correction at all. However, there is a legitimate usage of what is called the "rod of discipline:

Proverbs 13:24 He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

Notice that, in these passages, the Bible speaks of the "rod [jb,ve] of discipline," which all lexical sources agree is a form of remedial discipline [see Wilhelm VanGemeren New International dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, and Kohler Baumgartner Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament]. The standard lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs says that it is a "common article for smiting" [p.987]. While we need to be careful of the root fallacy, the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the root may have came from the Samaritan jmX meaning "to strike." In other words, what is being said here, is not that a striking rod is "abuse," but just the opposite, that it is remedial. Striking a child is something that will "rescue his soul from Sheol," "take away his foolishness," and "give him wisdom." In fact, one could say that refusing to spank your child, from a Biblical perspective, is a form of child abuse. As remember pastor Bill Shishko saying that the rod was a way of breaking the child's will so that he does not live for himself. So, actually, it is the people who are arguing against these parents that should be brought up for child abuse from a Biblical perspective.

However, even worse than that is the forced secularization of home-schooling children. Do you notice that the secularists and the humanists are the ones who are trying to remove this remedial discipline from children? Is it any suprise that the same groups that would want to indoctrinate our children with humanist ideology are the same groups that do not want our children to have the rod of correction? No, it is no coincidence. The humanists are people who do live for themselves, refusing to aknowledge God, and live in obedience to his law. If the will is broken, then there is no chance for indoctrination of humanistic ideology. Do you notice how this all gets down to foundational issues such as the sinfulness of the human will, and the lordship of Christ over one's life? You see, this is why education is not a small matter. However, you educate your children will determine what they value most in their life. This is why the rod needs to be used to train up children to be obedient to God's law, and not to follow their own desires.

In fact, there is a verse in Proverbs that speaks specifically to this point:

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child with in accordance with his [own] way, and even when he grows older, he will not turn from it.

Now, you might be asking, "But that is different than every translation!" Yes, because I reject every translation at this point. I have very good reason for so doing. To start off, I must point out that I am not alone in this. Consider the following works which also reject the common translation:

Clifford, Richard. Proverbs, a Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky. 1999 p.197

Stuart, Douglass. Old Testament Exegesis, a Handbook for Students and Pastors. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky. 2001 pgs. 42-43

Waltke, Bruce The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15-31. Eerdmans Publications. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2005 p.205

The reason why so many scholars reject the common interpretation is because there is simply no Hebrew equivalent of the English word "should." It simply reads, "Train up [%nOx]] a child [r[;N:l;] according to [yPi-l[;] his way [AKr>d:]." While Hugenberger rightly notes that the phrase AKr>d: could, in theory, mean "the way he should go," [Pratico, Gary. Van Pelt, Miles. The Basics of Biblical Hebrew Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2001. pgs.284-285], he is very quick to point out that there are no Biblical examples to support this interpretation, and it is expecially not used in this way in the book of Proverbs. The normal usage of the construct of %r,D, in Proverbs is to describe the way in which a person is currently going, or actually does go. For instance, we are all familiar with the phrase "the way of the fool," and "the way of the wicked." They are not saying that this is the way the wicked should go, or the way the fool should go. Quite the opposite. It is telling us the way they actually are going. In other words, this proverb is ironic in character, and, as Hugenberger rightly notes, is a "solemn warning." That is, if you train up a child in his own foolish way, then even when he is old, he will not depart from it.

That is why I believe that we should see this legal challange out in California as an attack upon our children. If we don't stand up and fight it, we will not be heeding the warning of Proverbs 22:6, because the atheists and the humanists will be more than happy to train up our children in their own way. We need to see this as an opportunity as parents to train up our children to think God's thoughts after him, and to think in such a way so as to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Christ.

Now, a few responses are in order to the arguments used in this article:

Specifically, the appeals court affirmed, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Of course, the way in which we answer that question is to point out that our children are part of the covenant community, and that provides them with interaction with people outside the family, and, given the discipline of the covenant community, would also provide them with help if something is amiss in the children's lives. They will also develop relationships with other christians, and thus, will be able to develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting.

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Of course, the whole point is that these children are enrolled in a private school. It is just that the teachers are the parents of the children. That is the whole point of setting up the organization.

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was one of a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

I want to know who is more credentialed than the children's own parents to teach their children? Why is it that the people who have been with the children their entire lives and know every intimate detail about them are not credentialed to teach them? The response might come back that they are not well trained in various fields. The simple answer to that is that anyone who has graduated from High School knows how to do research in a given area. What is to stop a parent from teaching their children after they have done complete research on the topic? And, what if materials such as books or video tapes could be given to the children from Christian organizations that are experts in the areas that parents are not? Would that not provide the credentials necessary to teach the children? Such seems obvious.

Again, there is no reason why Christian parents should not be able to raise their children, both remedially and educationally, in a Christian home. The atheists and the humanists simply have no leg to stand on in this case. We need to be praying for those that are fighting this attack in order to keep home schooling legal, and pray that our children would not be raised in their own ways, but in the training and admonition of the Lord. It is also a call for parents to exercise that right while they can. With the apostasy of the west, it is not to difficult to conceive of a time in which parents will be forced to send their children to these secular seminaries to have them indoctrinated with humanism.

The Fristianity Problem

The Fristianity problem is a problem that has come up in presuppositional apologetics. People who use this argument tend to ask why it is that we cannot construct a worldview which is like the Christian worldview with one acception...that God is a quadrinity rather than a trinity.

I was thinking of the naivette of such an argument the other day. The idea that you can remove one of the foundations of a web of belief, and not have that web of belief changed is simply irrational. Michael Butler expresses this well when he says:

The only way we know that God is a Trinity is that he revealed it to us – mere speculation or empirical investigation would never lead us to this conclusion. But the Fristian worldview, which is, ex hypothesis, identical to Christianity in every other way, asserts that its god is a quadrinity. But if Fristianity is otherwise identical to Christianity, the only way for us to know this would be for Fristian god to reveal this to us. But there is a problem with this. Supposing Fristianity had inspired scriptures (which it would have to have since it is all other ways identical to Christianity), these scriptures would have to reveal that the Fristian God is one in four. But notice that by positing a quadrinity, the Fristian scriptures would be quite different from the Christian Scriptures. Whereas the Christian Scriptures teach that, with regard to man's salvation, God the Father ordains, God the Son accomplishes and God the Spirit applies, the Fristian scriptures would have to teach a very different order. But exactly how would the four members of its imagined godhead be involved in man's salvation? More fundamentally, whereas in the Christian Trinity we read that the personal attribute of the Father is paternity, the personal attribute of the Son is filiation and the personal attribute of the Spirit is spiration, what would be the personal, distinguishing attributes of the members of the Fristian quadrinity? What would their relationship be to each other? Further questions flow out of this. How would the quadrinity affect the doctrine of man and sin? How would redemptive history look different? What about eschatology? This all needs to be spelled out in detail. This illustration reveals a general problem. One cannot tinker with Christian doctrine at one point and maintain that other doctrines will not be affected. It does no good for the proponent of Fristianity to claim that the only difference between his worldview and the Christian worldview is over the doctrine of the Trinity. Christian doctrine is systemic and a change in one area will necessarily require changes in others. It is necessary, therefore, that the advocate of Fristianity to spell out how this one change in doctrine affects all other doctrines. But once this is done, there is no guarantee that the result will be coherent. [available at http://butler-harris.org/tag/]

Indeed, one of the many problems with this type of position is that the people proposing it have not thought through the implications of what they are saying. Fristianity is a modern idea. The first question we should ask is, "How do we know of this God?" We must recognize that, if this God is the precondition for intellegability, then the world would have been unintelligable until the end of the twentieth century [which, interestingly enough, is about the time atheism started to feel the pressure of the Transendental argument]. The unbeliever might have one of two responses. First he could say that people knew about him, but there is no documentation that they did. However, such totally destroys the study of history. If we can assert that something happened from total silence, then it would mean that one might be able to say that the crusades actually didn't occur, and that the only ones who knew that they did not occur kept silent about it. In other other words, it is an argument from silence which is always fallacious.

However, if one is going to keep in step with Fristianity, one could suggest that the knowledge of the Fristian God is innate. Again, this is problematic. Why? Because of the fact that innate knowledge is not salvific. Hence, if you say that God was known innately, but not known specifically, then you have to believe that is not merciful. In other words, one would have to believe that no one was ever saved until the end of the twentieth century when people started receiving "revelations" of this Fristian god. Also, if every man were held responsible for their sins every second of the day, no man would be able to stand. We would all die an quick, and powerful death because of our sin. As David said, "If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" [Psalm 130:3]. So, hence, Fristianity would also have to hold that, because the wages of sin is death, and there is no mercy in God, God would exact payment for our sins right when we come out of the womb [because we are sinners out of the womb]. In essence, we would die immediately. However, we know that many ancient figures lived long lives. Hence, the Fristian view of God would be impossible.

One could say that, in the Fristian worldview, innate knowledge is salvific. However, that would be absurd. If that is the case, then what is the point of the specific revelation the Fristian is now receiving? Who cares about that revelation if general revelation is enough?

Not only that, but it would mean that no one could have ever known that they were saved, given that there was no specific revelation to tell us what one must, at least, be desposed to believe in order to be a Fristian.

Also, how would we have known anything about God? Classic Christian theology has taught that specific revelation is needed to understand general revelation. Hence, without the specific revelation, God becomes unintelligable.

As one can see, Fristianity is a total impossibility. By answering each of these objections, the Fristian would move farther and farther from the Christian worldview. By stating that God is a quadrinity, you must reject other Christian beliefs, and thus a person cannot hold that they believe all of Christianity, and that their only point of departure is that they believe God is a quadrinity. Worldviews work together, and you cannot change one belief in the worldview without the rest coming down with it as well.

Also, notice the abiguity in the Fristian worldview. We don't know much more about it that that there is a quatrine God. It almost seems as though the worldview is, itself, inconceivable as it has not worked out many of the problems above. There just seems to be no framework there, and thus, no worldview. Michael Butler is certainly right to conclude:

Thus without providing the details of Fristian theology, this objection loses its punch. It can only be thought to be a challenge to Christianity if it, like Christianity, provides preconditions of experience. But without knowing the details, we cannot submit it to an internal critique. Until this happens, we can justifiably fall back on the conclusion that there is no conceivable worldview, apart from Christianity, that can provide the preconditions of experience.