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.

Education in our Schools

I was listening to the February 16 edition of the Gary DeMar show, and Gary was calling for a mass exodus from the public schools. During the show, his guest, Dr. Ron Gleason mentioned some videos that he had on his website of children being taught in public schools. I went to his website, and found that, in actuallity it was an offsite video. However, I was still curious, and clicked on the link. What I found in these videos was just shocking. Here they are, just so you are aware of what is happening with your taxpayer dollars.

The first thing that stuck out to me in the first video was this statement in the teacher's meeting:

We are asking kids to believe that this is right not as a matter of [inaudible]. We are educating them, and this is what we consider to be part of healthy education.

In other words, "healthy education" is educating children to be secular humanists, to deny the inerrancy of the Bible, and do adopt a worldview that cannot make sense out of morality, science, logic, induction, knowledge, etc. If this does not tell you that public schools who do this kind of a thing have an agenda, then I don't know what will.

Next, there was the reading of a book called Asha's Mums. It was about a girl named Asha told her class that her brother and her have two moms. A child in this book called out what seems natural to all of us who have not accepted this worldview, and said "You can't have to moms." The teacher retorts "Now, if you were Asha, how do you think you'd feel?" This theme runs throughout all the videos. We have to ask how it would make us "feel." Well, I just simply have to retort that murderers do not feel very good when they are arrested and put into prision. However, would anyone who holds this position seriously consider this to be a problem? What is right and what is wrong is not based on how it makes a person feel. If it were, we would have utter moral chaos.

Next, one of the little boys said that he didn't think that this girl was being very open minded. The teacher asked him to explain what he meant by "open minded." Now, of course, anyone who has ever dealt with these folks knows just how closed minded these people are. Just simply ask the question, "Are you willing to be open to the idea that the Bible is inerrant, and that, therefore, homosexuality is an abomination [Leviticus 18:22, 20:13]?" I guarantee that they are totally unwilling to be open minded to that idea.

Then, the teacher read aloud from this very ludicrious part of this book.

"You can't have two momies," Judy insisted. "Yes she can," Rita said turning around in her seat. "Just like you have two aunts, and to daddies, and two grandmas."

Well, first of all, no one can have two daddies. Second, would these people accept the idea that you can have two wives? Indeed, most people who are pushing for this kind of agenda do not, in any way shape or form, want to support polygamy. However, if it is acceptable to have two of everything, why not have two wives?

Then, one teacher asked, "Think about, if you personally, yourself, have ever heard anybody using a word that would make a gay person feel bad, or be really hurtful to a gay person, and think about how it made you feel." One of the kids said that they heard them using derogatory language. In other words, I guess what they are saying there is no way to address a situation in a God honoring fashion while still letting that person know that their behavior is wrong. In other words, if you dare say that homosexual behavior is wrong, all of the sudden you are just like the person who uses derogatory language, no matter how God honoring you are in your approach.

After this, there was a gay physical education teacher who gave the following mini speech:

Imagine if everytime I went to play soccer, I had to hide my right shin, and then, I try to play soccer. It wouldn't be easy, but I could do it. It would take a lot of energy to play soccer, and also hide my leg. Well, at CFS, I don't have to hide, so I can play soccer with two legs. At CFS, I can tell the truth that I am a gay man, and that gives me so much more energy to be a better teacher, to be a better coworker, and to be a better friend.

Let me present this little parody:

Imagine if everytime I went to play soccer, I had to hide my right shin, and then, I try to play soccer. It wouldn't be easy, but I could do it. It would take a lot of energy to play soccer, and also hide my leg. Well, at CFS, I don't have to hide, so I can play soccer with two legs. At CFS, I can tell the truth that I am a child molester, and that gives me so much more energy to be a better teacher, to be a better coworker, and to be a better friend.

Now, of course, most people would shreek in horror if someone stood up in an elementary school and said this. The problem is that this gentleman has it backwards. When he is really hiding one leg is when he is openly expressing his homosexuality. Why? Because he is not admitting that he is a creature that is created in the image of God, and as such, he owes his obedience to God. Hence, he is not functioning in the way God created him to be, and thus, he is trying to go through life knowing God, and yet refusing to honor him as such [Romans 1:21].

At one point, the teachers ask these children to judge whether or not gays should be able to marry. He presents two positions, and when he presents his position he says, "Others think it should just be up to two adults to decide what they want to do." Well, what happens if one of the two adults is a cannable, and he asks the other adult if he can eat his flesh after he dies, and the other adult agrees. Is this somehow morally acceptable?

Then, during the "judging," one young girl went on a rant. she said:

Now the majority is not gay or lesbian couples. I think they should think about what if the majority was gay or lesbian couples, and there was a law that said you had to be gay or lesbian, and you couldn't get married to the opposite sex. I think they otta think about that, and see how they would feel, and then they might know how these gay and lesbians feel...It is just like being prejudiced against blacks or Jews.

Where in the world has anyone ever suggested that something is right because it is the majority? This is simply not how ethics is done. You don't say majority rules. Also, notice again, you also don't say "How does it make you feel." As I pointed out above, both are equally fallacious when it comes to ethical reasoning.

Now, as far as the statement that it is just like being prejudiced against blacks or Jews, the question must come as to whether or not all discrimination is wrong. I believe it is not. We discriminate against murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, etc., and no one complains about that. Of course, what I am trying to say is that it is perfectly acceptable to be discriminate against those who practice immoral behavior. We do it all of the time by putting them in prisions, fining them, etc. Now, of course, we need to say right off the bat that we need to be obedient to God's law at this point, and not engage in name calling, and derogatory language. When it comes to how we deal with homosexuals in our modern society, we need to still be obedient to what God has said.

At the end of this second video one of the teachers said, "If we do not provide them with these experiences, then we will not be improving our civilization." Here is where the worldview issue really comes full circle. You see, these people believe that the way we improve our civilization is by telling kids to determine ethics based on their feelings, to be open minded to sin, and to reject God's law. However, Psalm 1 gives us the Christian worldview:

Psalm 1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers. 4 The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish.

You see, this type of lawlessness is the exact opposite of what the Christian believes we need in order to improve our civilization. What the Christian believes we need is to do to improve our civilization is to delight in the law of the Lord. Hence, the worldviews are laid out very clearly. What this teacher has said is simply a counterfiet version of salvation.

I could not help but notice the irony of the kids singing This Little Light of Mine at the end of the first video. If you read the lyrics, you will find that it is talking about Jesus' statement in Matthew 5 from the KJV:

Matthew 5:14-19 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

How ironic that the very same passage from which this song comes talks about Jesus not coming to abolish the law. Amazingly, it also talks about the light being the good works that we are to let people see, so that we glorify our father who is in heaven. However, the teachers in the video were promoting an ideology that is totally contrary to God's law. You see, that is what is most troubling. Without the law of God, there is nothing to convict of sin. Notice, the attack upon the "traditional interpretation" of the Bible given by young girl who won the essay contest in the second video. Indeed, if God's law is silenced, there is no conviction of sin. That is really the danger. Not only is homosexuality said to be wrong in the Bible, it is said to be wrong by the use of one of the strongest words available in the Hebrew language, hb'[eAT, meaning "abhorrance, abomination." Not only that, in Leviticus 20:13, God commands the civil magistrates to execute unrepentant homosexuals. Hence, according to the Bible, these actions are not just immoral, they are criminal. The problem is that even the Christian community has become desensitized to this. You may not believe that the penal sanctions of the Old Testament apply today, but even if you do not, you should not think that this is too severe a punishment. You should not think that God is being "barbaric" or "too harsh" for saying this.

This is why I am studying to be an Old Testament scholar, and why I want to do my concentration in Pentatuch. We need to place God's law back into the heart of our livelyhood, and back into the heart of our thinking. We need to be like the blessed man of Psalm 1 who delights in God's law. Then, we will able to show people the holiness of God over and against the sinfulness of homosexuality. Only then can the gospel be presented. I don't even agree with the argumentation presented at the end of the second film that homosexuality cannot produce children, therefore it is wrong. Such could be said about marriages to infertile women as well. Instead of using arguments like this, we have to challange these people to see the moral mess that they have made for themselves by rejecting God's law, and present his law as the only alternative to all opposing ethical systems. Only then can we show homosexuals that they are already under the judgment of God, and that they need to have their mind and their heart redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, because ethically, they are lost without Christ.

There is hope for homosexual. It comes through repentance of their homosexuality, and faith in Jesus Christ. However, your tax dollars are going towards the promotion of this message amongst our young people which utterly separates homosexuals from the gospel. It is for this reason that I, not only caution people about sending their children to public schools, but also to write to their senators, their represenatives, the president, and members of the supreme court, and tell them that you do not want your tax dollars supporting this unbiblical, anti-gospel message.