The problem with actually saying stuff on a blog is that people will disagree. I don't particularly like disagreement. I'd much rather we were all happy hanging out here together... Or arguing lightly about stuff that we don't really care about either way.
Notice how women commenters felt the issue of schooling much more strongly than guy commenters? We've got so much invested in our kids and want so much to do everything the best way.
I have no doubt that all of you (especially those who disagree with me) are very committed to your children and want what is best for them. Nor do I doubt your commitment to Jesus. If you lived nearby and came to my church I think we would be good friends.
So is it judgmental for me to hold strong views which are incompatible with your views?
What about if I really believed in infant baptism and thought all you believer's baptism types were sinning? Could I express that view without being judgmental? Even if I couched it all in nice language and said I didn't think your opinions were a salvation matter, the truth would remain that I seriously believed you were doing the wrong thing. Should I express that or keep it to myself? [I care nothing about the baptism issue.]
My pro-state school position comes from my foundational view that in normal circumstances*, we should aim for the greatest good (educational and gospel) for the greatest number of people. I rank what is good for the whole system ahead of what is good for my particular (normal-ish) child. Some will think this callous. Fair enough. Rather than list 16 points as I did, it probably would have made for a more useful conversation if I stated my underlying principle and we argued from there. It probably would have removed it a little from the practical outworkings and kept some hurt out.
So, if you'd like to keep this going, pick an option.
In the case of a normal-ish child (ie. not a special needs case)
a.) We should make our schooling decisions based on the 'greatest good for the greatest number' principle.
b.) We should make our schooling decisions based on what is best for our child.
c.) This is completely the wrong question to be asking. The better question is...............
But I think it's almost time to put this topic to bed. I don't want to be known in blogland as a horrible person who thinks badly of everyone else (I don't. Really, I don't.) And in these last 3 posts I have blown my policy of minding my own business on family type things. Just for fun, leave an 'a', 'b' or 'c' in the comment box and I'll resume regular blogging. I'm sure the third eagle of the apocalypse has something amusing for us to watch.
* I think kids with special needs are in a category of their own and parents should do whatever they can to make education happen effectively and happily for their SN children. I wish there could be excellent public schooling options for all children whether they have SN or not, but this is not the case at the moment.
Agree. I think people are generally bad about disagreeing, but particularly so online.
ReplyDeleteI personally tend to make judgments about people on little issues (and some big ones) based entirely on whether or not they agree with me.
I think the media's portrayal of politics as purely adversarial when it actually involves a lot of civility and compromise is a telling example of the way our culture thrives on, and cultivates, disagreement and a lack of nuance.
Embrace the extremes. I'll still like you even if you're a raving loony.
I don't think that expressing your views in a forthright manner is judgemental. Nor is it hateful. And it came across as neither. If people disagree with you, are their reactions your responsibility? Or even a reflection of how you have couched things?
ReplyDeleteLove this blog!
Hey Simone I loved that discussion although I didn't spend much time sitting at my computer at the weekend so only saw it this evening. As someone who tends to hold a minority opinion more often than not (some personality quirk) and also hates conflict I sympathise with you. But most of your readers/participants didn't seem to mind. I think when everyone's agreeing it probably means they're not thinking very hard. I always have to remind myself though that when people disagree with me that doesn't mean they hate me, even if they express their views very strongly.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the men get more engaged in theological subjects and women in educational and child rearing ones. Nature or nurture? But parenting (that's what your post was about really) is obviously a very touchy subject as it's so close to our hearts and so much of our self worth is bound up with how our parents raised us and how we raise our children that its one of the hardest subjects to be objective about. Perhaps we shouldn't be - good parenting surely involves a lot of passion and emotional engagement.
Taking posts down when people have discussed them is mean.
ReplyDeleteStick to your guns. I think editing posts and telling people you've done it in the comments is a better path than destroying the records of what I think has been a pretty excellent example of the blogosphere.
You put ideas out there, people disagreed. Such is life. It's exactly this not being prepared to say anything interesting or controversial that is killing any form of discourse in our country.
Thanks Nathan. I'll put it back up in a few days when I've more posts to hide it.
ReplyDeleteSimone - I thought your post was really thought provoking in a good way. It is always good to think through the decisions that we make, or to think through the decisions that we may need to make in the future.
ReplyDeleteSorry if my post on my blog seemed to be really negative to yours - I didn't mean it to be - and what I loved about your post is you made me think and re-think - it's a good thing. I also thought that adding the 'OR' into the points was helpful clarification.
Thanks Ruth. Your post was great. Mine wasn't. Attributing motives to people was a bad idea. I could have done it much better.
ReplyDeleteThat was confusing. I'd just been reading the comments on it, and then came here to find that I hadn't been where I was.....
ReplyDeletePhew. For a moment there, I could've been trapped in cyberspace!
Simone, I like your flex!
ReplyDeleteI think it is good to discuss things. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, if we do it with tone of Romans 14-15.
I go for c.
Realising we have obligations to love the many (wider community) and the few (husband, kids, extended family, local church etc) in different ways.
It gets messy and unbiblical if we treat these categories the same (I don't love everyone in the wider community the same way I love my husband, to be blunt - that would be sin).
I will not be loving the wider community if I do not love "the few" in the ways God requires me to...
The shape of love for the many and the few changes for different people at different stages. If we start thinking in these categories, new questions emerge.
So, education has questions like:
what actual options to we have to educate our children?
Which options will best train them to grow into godly and competent adults who love Jesus (in God's grace?). - competent so they can love the wider community, in work and service, for decades to come?
How can we fulfil this mandate and be a blessing to the wider community in a few ways at the same time?
When asking those questions, I am not a fan of any particular option of schooling. The answers will be different in rural NSW from what it will be inner city Brisbane or Sydney. And even from child to child.
I think ideals are good though, they give us a bench mark to bounce from.
Thanks for moving the dialogue ahead, Simone.
(with warmth, by the way).
I like the new direction you're going in, and wouldn't be phased that your first attempt failed your own high standards, Simone. I also second putting the post back up - I was looking forward to interacting with it today then found out it had vanished.
ReplyDeleteSince this now seems to be the only place to comment, here's a few thoughts:
1. I think in terms of how you're setting up the question now, I'm fairly sure that a) is a terrible way to go about doing things. On the back of my and Michael's debate over the Piper quote, I can't imagine that we have the ability to know what is likely to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. And what if it produces some good for a large number at a huge cost for a small number? It's a very icky approach all around. (And if Michael catches wind you think you can calculate 'the good' non-eschatologically like this, you're going to be In So Much Trouble :) ).
2. I think my hassle with your original post is that you fell into the same approach as the Christian homeschoolers are supposed to. After arguing hard that the gospel doesn't require us to vote one way or another in the federal election, and rejecting ideas of setting up a Christian values list, you then turned around and tried to claim that the gospel requires a certain educational approach! You upheld the freedom of the Christian when Scripture is silent on one issue then took it back on another.
The gospel does not require me to homeschool, nor does it require me to send them to a state school. I am genuinely free before God to make a decision that I think is best. That's my resposibility, that's my right. If you have counsel, I'm keen to hear it as someone a few years behind you in the life cycle. But we have to stop issuing commands in places where the Bible doesn't.
3. Jennie and I are toying with homeschooling. I'd be surprised if we ended up doing it, but it's on the table. I think it should be on every parent's table as a serious possibility, and the default should not be just send children to organised education (state or private) without even looking at other possibilities. But none of our thinking looked even remotely like what you canvassed.
Modern schooling is a relatively recent phenomenom. It's hardly the obvious or natural way to equip children to function as adults. We need more sense that it really is not 'just obviously what needs to happen'. Here's a few thoughts:
a) My basic impression is that it's a highly inefficient use of time and resources. I suspect that of twelve years of schooling, I could have learned it in (at most) four. I struggle to see how our kids wouldn't be far better off educationally by having their learning directed by Jennie and extra input from me.
b) It's an unnatural way to socialise children. Children naturally socialise by relating to a range of age groups, and usually play with kids and hang out with kids a year or two older or younger than them (or more so) - siblings and cousins, but also kids in the neighbourhood and children of parents' friends.
I think the problem of adolesence and now peter pan twenty year olds is partly due to the structure of formal schooling that cuts children off from substantial adult interaction for the biggest part of their learning. Other things contribute, but that's a method that is a curriculum all of it's own.
c) It's not obvious to me that a professionally trained person who does not care about the children but is doing it for pay will be better at educating them than someone who cares about them. With adults I can see the logic of this arrangement, but with children more is going on than just the passing on of data and skills - an adult is being formed.
ReplyDeleteAnd handing a lot of the heavy lifting of that over to someone who is only there because that's their pay packet cuts against the grain of some of my Scripture-derived views about child development. If a parent can teach their child about right and wrong and about how to live, they can also teach them what they need to function as an adult in modern society.
d) I really don't like arguments that say that the great commission means that we shouldn't put too much energy or time into our children. If that's the case, then only one partner should earn a living, and the other should sink the three or more days they have 'free' into gospel work. A family can survive on one pay packet.
Even more robustly, couples should consider not having children at all, in light of the great commission.
While I'm happy to say that the great commission means that Christians should seriously consider staying single, if they get themselves entangled in civilian affairs, then those responsibilities are not at odds with the gospel, and should not be cast in that kind of light.
e) My experience (and Jen's) of going through a state school - both more typical schools than where you are sending your children - is that it is hard to keep alive a desire to learn or excel. High achievers at my school tended to be isolated by the other kids, let alone ones who did anything extra like get involved in science competitions or the like.
That doesn't make me go, "Don't send my kids to a state school". It does make me question the idea that a 'great state school system' is as helpful as we think it is.
I wonder what might happen if we axed state schools altogether, removed any legal requirements for schooling, lowered people's taxes accordingly and people took responsibility for their own and their children's ability to earn a living for themselves at adulthood.
It's too extreme a libertarian solution for me, but I think people generally are more motivated when they are spending their own money, and when they are using their own time, than when it is a legally required obligation that costs nothing. The vast majority of people are smart enough to work out what they need (or their kids need) to get employed and to make sure they get that, if the scaffolding is taken away. People will offer services to ensure key skills and knowledge bases are learned. People will take those on as they see the need. Motivation will likely be an awful lot higher.
This is not a recommendation for such a solution - it's a thought experiment to say that I question the absolute good of a state school system. We need to think outside the box more and see other ways the goals could be met. Then even if we stick with what we've got, we have a more realistic sense of it in comparison to real alternatives.
To actually answer the question you pose in the post Simone - I'm a capital A. I'm working, in my head, on a post about being a gospel utilitarian.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much have decided that that's what Paul was.
Basically - the underpinning question behind all of my actions will be based on taking the option that brings the truth of the gospel, presented in love, to the greatest number of people.
If I assume that the "greatest good" is the gospel then I'm really just being a utilitarian at that point...
I understand this puts me dangerously close to the "pragmatic" camp that is a little on the nose in just about every circle we move in. Perhaps Rick Warren will give me a job.
So for me, the school question is pretty cut and dried.
I think the decision should be based primarily on finding a school community to plug into and serve - hoping to improve stuff at school (which based on your interactions with Eagle Junction I reckon probably fits).
I said in my post, linking to your post (in the comments) that for me any schooling decision about we have to make in the future will be just like choosing a local church - I'll send my kids to the closest school with acceptable teaching, and I'll involve myself in the community.
Mark,
re d)
If you've read this mega preamble... I didn't think that was necessarily the way Simone was invoking the Great Commission - I think the idea was that you involve your kids in the great commission and create an opportunity to meet non-Christians for yourself while you're at it. How are we going to help our kids be great commission focused if they're stuck at home or in a cloistered Christian school?
I'm wondering if you think there are different issues to work through if you're in suburban ministry - a lot of what Simone posted resonated with me because that's the framework I hope to be thinking in when the time comes to be sending any offspring I have to school. If you're ministering to a suburb it doesn't make sense to send your kids across town to a better school when most of your parishioners, and your mission field, are using the school a block away.
People in ministry are isolated enough from non-Christians - I would have thought involving yourself in the local school community, and in Clayfield, where Simone is the school is pretty much the only community hub. Nobody gathers around anything else.
re: e) I went to some pretty rubbish public schools with some pretty rubbish teachers - and ultimately my desire to learn was fueled by an ingrained curiosity and love of reading - both things that I attribute to my parents rather than any teachers. If anything teachers just got in the way. And I wonder if your statement about the content that school provides being teachable in four years plays a bigger part in keeping motivation than the choice of schools or the social isolation. Most people who do incredibly well seem to do so as a result of internal motivation, rather than external...
I guarantee I'm better at talking to non-Christians because of the public school experience.
My wife also spent the last four years teaching at a Christian school. It was a harrowing experience. They tend to either become parachurch organisations that eat into the ministry time of their staff and parent body - or they become a bit cult like.
I quite like your libertarian experiment - and I wonder what role the church would play if that happened... In the past we would have built schools. We would probably charge money to allow those schools to provide services to meet demand. Poor families would look enviously over our ivy covered walls. The government would then have to look into funding a similar, but lower quality equivalent.
Hi Simone, (I commented on your comment on Jenny's blog before I saw this one).
ReplyDeleteI agree with the others who would like to see your deleted post put back up :-)
I had another thought.
The greatest good for the greatest number is a great principle by which to make decisions. But it's not the only God honouring one.
Glorying in the beauty of God's creation and praising him for it is a great way to spend your school years. I've seen homeschooled kids who live in a lovely house on a beautiful block of land, who go for walks every day and are intimately acquainted with their land (and also their God).
(And I appreciate your strong opinions. Passion is a good thing, when moderated by grace. I hope you don't mind my opinions.)
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI'm a capital A. I'm working, in my head, on a post about being a gospel utilitarian.
I pretty much have decided that that's what Paul was.
Basically - the underpinning question behind all of my actions will be based on taking the option that brings the truth of the gospel, presented in love, to the greatest number of people.
If I assume that the "greatest good" is the gospel then I'm really just being a utilitarian at that point...
I understand this puts me dangerously close to the "pragmatic" camp that is a little on the nose in just about every circle we move in. Perhaps Rick Warren will give me a job.
No. That doesn’t put you dangerously close, it puts you dead bang at the heart of ground zero of the pragmatic camp. Jon and I batted this back and forth a bit on his blog recently,
http://paintingfakes.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-there-christian-law.html
http://paintingfakes.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-there-christian-law-part-2-sermon-on.html
and if you take out ‘love’ and replace it with ‘gospel’, move the issue from primarily ethics to primarily ministry my response there will cover my response here.
The short version is: yes, I can see how one could (just) derive a gospel pragmatist from 1 Cor 8-10. I can’t see how anyone could do it from 2 Cor 10-12. The gospel doesn’t just give us the ends – ‘bring the truth of the gospel, in love, to the greatest number of people’. It also gives us the means – it sets up a manner and way of life (and life of ministry) that conforms to the message. Even if murdering someone had the best chances of ‘bringing the truth of the gospel, in love, to the greatest number of people’ it would be wrong. Even if paying Fox TV to emblazon “John 3:16” onto the jersies of the cheerios on Glee while they were doing one of their simulated sex cheerleading routines, it would be wrong. And even if we can find something that isn’t immoral as such, it might still be the wrong way to promote the gospel – see 2 Cor again.
Gospel utilitarianism will always result in the Incredible Shrinking Evangelical, because it will act as though the Word of God has nothing in particular to say about how we should go about declaring Christ, only that we should. The means are justified by the end, and so are inherently amoral, and atheological, and completely dependent on what our wisdom tells us has the best chances of meeting the most people.
In the current context that will always mean softpedalling the gospel’s demand for wide-ranging repentance from people. So we will not turn to the Word of God to tell us how to minister – we’ll just look to experts in the social sciences to give us the data for us to make our own decisions. And we’ll struggle to present a Christ who makes demands on people, when much of our lives as ministers are free from his micromanagement.
Heb 11 tells us that the outcome of faith for the OT saints was sometimes life and victory, sometimes death and defeat. Gospel pragmatism by its very nature will always choose life and victory even when the path of faith would have led to death and defeat.
I think the idea was that you involve your kids in the great commission and create an opportunity to meet non-Christians for yourself while you're at it. How are we going to help our kids be great commission focused if they're stuck at home or in a cloistered Christian school?
ReplyDeleteHmmmnnn. I am fairly sure families did that for almost 1900 years before compulsory schooling came along. But to give a more contemporary response. If, as someone who believes that children in Christian families don’t ‘convert’ as such normally, but usually grow into the faith as their faith as they grow up, then maybe the better way to involve the kids in the great commission is to be involved more as a family and with the parents taking the lead and modelling it, rather than sending the kids out to do it in their schoolplace. Don’t treat them as though they are already full formed Christian adults in miniature, but make the family life, and the parent’s example in front of the children, the engine room of a commitment to the great commission. Again, I’m not advocating that, but it seems as arguable as your preference.
If you're ministering to a suburb it doesn't make sense to send your kids across town to a better school when most of your parishioners, and your mission field, are using the school a block away.
People in ministry are isolated enough from non-Christians - I would have thought involving yourself in the local school community, and in Clayfield, where Simone is the school is pretty much the only community hub. Nobody gathers around anything else.
Which means we’re now pretty close to saying that singles, marrieds who are infertile and who haven’t adopted, or marrieds whose children are no longer at school can’t do ministry in places like Clayfield.
re: e) I went to some pretty rubbish public schools with some pretty rubbish teachers - and ultimately my desire to learn was fueled by an ingrained curiosity and love of reading - both things that I attribute to my parents rather than any teachers. If anything teachers just got in the way. And I wonder if your statement about the content that school provides being teachable in four years plays a bigger part in keeping motivation than the choice of schools or the social isolation. Most people who do incredibly well seem to do so as a result of internal motivation, rather than external...
Yes, so the ‘great public school system’ is one where people succeed despite the school because their home environment instantiates such values that even the school can’t extinguish them.
This system has been trialled for over a century, it hasn’t gotten any better in all that time. Maybe the Christian response is to try and find a better system than compulsory schooling. Rather than being complicit in a system that constantly doesn’t work just because it makes our ministry easier in the short term. We already get enough flak for how our predecessors took that option with the Aboriginal people, with being responsible for discipline in the first colony and the like. (Again, not advocating that – just contesting a presupposition in the debate.)
I quite like your libertarian experiment - and I wonder what role the church would play if that happened... In the past we would have built schools. We would probably charge money to allow those schools to provide services to meet demand. Poor families would look enviously over our ivy covered walls. The government would then have to look into funding a similar, but lower quality equivalent.
No, we did it for centuries before the government took it over. The model and such varied constantly. But we often didn’t charge, or if we did we ran special schools as ministries for those who couldn’t pay (such as Orphanage Schools). The government didn’t intervene because the poor were missing out. I think they intervened at least in part, in the interests of promoting a secular society free of religious sectarianism. But that’s another story.
Regarding, a. no-one does this for (most) other parenting decisions, so why in this instance?
ReplyDeleteI mean, considering the fact that $1 buys more in Africa than here (and will hence feed more there = greater number), should we starve our children to send money to Africa?
Ridiculously overblown example, I know, I'm just trying to point out that the underlying principle is flawed. And I'm certainly not saying that public schooling is in every case irresponsible. What I am saying is that in some cases, it is irresponsible...I know of many (and this is not a throwaway statement: I mean many) homeschoolers who are now homeschoolers because there kids are now "classified" as special needs, having been to public school (i.e. severe psychological scarring, as diagnosed by (secular, not pop-Christian) psychologists).
I have eight hours of classes today, though...so sorry for the "fly-by-early-hours-of-the-morning" comment...
*their kids.
ReplyDeleteGosh, I'm doing the homeschooling movement proud today. :P
(But if your basic principle, is "don't be judgmental", I'm all for it. There are great public schools. No bones with that!)
ReplyDelete'Which means we’re now pretty close to saying that singles, marrieds who are infertile and who haven’t adopted, or marrieds whose children are no longer at school can’t do ministry in places like Clayfield.'
ReplyDeleteThat has the ring of a strawman to it - what I'm saying is that the school is a good place, and the most natural place in the suburb for ministry to happen alongside and within an existing community.
"I am fairly sure families did that for almost 1900 years before compulsory schooling came along. "
Again, what we've done in the last 1900 years, unless we have a real education revolution is irrelevant. How parents, and those wanting to be parents, and those who are educators think about the issue today, in our current situation, seems much more useful.
"If, as someone who believes that children in Christian families don’t ‘convert’ as such normally, but usually grow into the faith as their faith as they grow up, then maybe the better way to involve the kids in the great commission is to be involved more as a family and with the parents taking the lead and modelling it, rather than sending the kids out to do it in their schoolplace. Don’t treat them as though they are already full formed Christian adults in miniature."
You're setting this up in diametric opposition to Simone's suggestion, and then my suggestion - when in fact I think it's part and parcel of sending your kids to a public school. To not take those responsibilities is to abdicate your role as a parent completely - I don't think any position taken with response to a child's education, of those surveyed in Simone's post, fall into that category. You've moved the goalposts to parenting in general, not education as a subset of parenting.
I think teaching your children to engage with a secular world is important, so I would need to see how that could possibly happen in a home school context.
"Rather than being complicit in a system that constantly doesn’t work just because it makes our ministry easier in the short term."
Perhaps a better approach would be to be part of the solution, not ignoring the problem. Which I think is part of being involved in a school community as a Christian - given my presupposition that enabling people to encounter the gospel is the "greatest good."
Option a)is too group orientated for your culture. Australia and the whole Western world, actually, is individualistic. But even in a group orientated society like Japan, people are still aiming for the best educational outcomes for their kids.
ReplyDeleteBut I think this is very much an issue where you take your whole situation (location, personalities, convictions, gifting, calling etc) and lay it before God and ask Him to guide you. He's made us all different and put us in different situations. Where one family thrives, another family whithers.
Bear in mind that you are fortunate in Australia to have choices. Most people in the world don't have a choice about education.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI missed your response to the gospel utilitarian position I'm advocating. I think the problem with your, and others, corrective against hyper-utilitarianism is that it doesn't mesh with my experience of being pragmatic.
"In the current context that will always mean softpedalling the gospel’s demand for wide-ranging repentance from people."
But that's not actually the gospel. Is it?
"So we will not turn to the Word of God to tell us how to minister – we’ll just look to experts in the social sciences to give us the data for us to make our own decisions. And we’ll struggle to present a Christ who makes demands on people, when much of our lives as ministers are free from his micromanagement."
I think it's possible to do both - both sit under what scripture tells us should be our approach ethically, theologically and pastorally - and engage with social sciences to inform our decisions. That to me seems the ultimate in pragmatism. The pragmatism you are arguing with is a pragmatism that doesn't assume that God has an active interest in the process and outcome of evangelism. I'm certainly not in that camp.
I've posted a reflection on this saga, and perhaps in response to the main point of this post, here.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a better approach would be to be part of the solution, not ignoring the problem. Which I think is part of being involved in a school community as a Christian - given my presupposition that enabling people to encounter the gospel is the "greatest good.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s a lot more socially conservative than I expected from you. That is the classic response of the person supporting the status quo. “Have your criticisms, raise your concerns. But be part of the solution - i.e. support the institution already in place and don’t try and replace it with another.”
If the system is bad, and we support it in order to make sure that in the short term people encounter the gospel, then we are suggesting that God doesn’t really care about right or wrong, what’s good or what’s bad, only whether or not people hear the gospel. We are proclaiming a gospel that has no ethical implications. We’ll support the system is in place – democratic if it’s democratic, good for children if it’s good for children, life affirming if it’s life affirming. But if the system is bad for children we’ll still support it if it allows us to preach as the reward for our support, if it’s corrupt we’ll support that if we can preach, if it’s unjust we’ll support it if we can preach.
That’s why your pragmatism is a bad thing. It leads us to do things that are wrong in themselves because the only thing that matters is the ‘greatest good’ of preaching the gospel. Whereas traditionally Christians have been concerned for preaching the gospel and for doing it in a way that reflects its true nature – which means that they’ve made stands on secondary social and moral issues too. They’ve fought slavery, they’ve promoted freedom, they’ve argued for laws that promote morality even when it’s cost them platforms for hearing the gospel. I get the feeling that you think they were wrong, and they should have only been concerned with the gospel and done whatever was necessary to get it out.
I missed your response to the gospel utilitarian position I'm advocating. I think the problem with your, and others, corrective against hyper-utilitarianism is that it doesn't mesh with my experience of being pragmatic.
ReplyDeleteOkay, but the most likely reason for that disconnect is either because you’re not really a utilitarian, you just think it’s a way of saying ‘looking at the actual world around you and making wise decisions that don’t all come just from the Bible’, or because you lack self-awareness. I didn’t critique hyper-utilitarianism. I critiqued utilitarianism – a view that says that means are amoral, and anything is possibly moral, it just depends on whether we think it’s calculated to bring about the most good to most people. If you didn’t recognise yourself in the critique then stop using the word ‘utilitarianism’ to describe your position (and Simone should lay off invoking the key utilitarian principle). But if that’s your view then you have a responsibility to own it fully – both what you like about it, as well as what leaves you open to criticisms from others.
But that's not actually the gospel. Is it?
Depends on what you mean. Is the gospel repent and be saved? No. I’ve just written an eight-part series where that was a key point. But does the gospel teach us to repent as one of its effects? Are God’s demands on us detached from the gospel? Or does the grace of God teach us to say no to ungodliness, and now that I am a new creation in Christ do I have the ability and calling to live a new life? What do you make of Revelation 14:6-7?
"That’s a lot more socially conservative than I expected from you."
ReplyDeleteI'm a mostly socially conservative guy.
"That is the classic response of the person supporting the status quo. “Have your criticisms, raise your concerns. But be part of the solution - i.e. support the institution already in place and don’t try and replace it with another.”
I'm not sure that supporting the institution already in place precludes replacing it with another - for example - I think Wilberforce would have treated slaves he encountered with love (and a concern for their freedom, and for their salvation) while fighting for the greater cause of abolition. Why not do both. Your caricature of my position is full of dichotomies. I'm currently all about nuance. Grey is the new black. In varying shades.
Without bogging down this comment with more quotes and responses - heres where I think your response diverges from my position...
You talk about "supporting the system" where I talk about "becoming part of the solution." Part of that solution, as things presently stand, is being part of the school community and even engaging in such things as the P&C.
I think it's interesting that we're generally so keen to buy into the findings of actual science and so keen to dismiss the social sciences - I don't think we arrived at our current system of education by accident. Nor do those who are trained as educators.
"But if the system is bad for children we’ll still support it if it allows us to preach as the reward for our support, if it’s corrupt we’ll support that if we can preach, if it’s unjust we’ll support it if we can preach."
I think that's just utilitarianism applied to ministry - and I don't think that has anything to do with the way Paul approached ministry, so perhaps I need a better word than "utilitarianism" - but I'm hoping that the "gospel" qualifier is more definitionally emphatic than the "utilitarianism" bit. I guess I'm suggesting Christians to live lives transformed by the gospel in order to present truth of the Lordship of Christ, in love, to as many people as possible. For me the gospel has massive ethical implications - and I don't know how you can split them. I think "preaching the gospel" involves living the gospel - not in that "if necessary use words" manner.
"It leads us to do things that are wrong in themselves because the only thing that matters is the ‘greatest good’ of preaching the gospel."
That, again, would be pure pragmatism. I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating using whatever means we have at our disposal to ensure people encounter the gospel. And I think part of that, a huge part of that, is living lives consistent with our message. There is no place for hypocrisy in a "pragmatic" approach to the gospel. Hypocrisy doesn't work (unless you couple it with the prospect of material wealth for your converts).
So yeah, I guess if you want to boil this all down to a shorter response my argument is this:
Gospel Utilitarianism, in my mind, is ensuring the greatest number of people enjoy the greatest good - the greatest good being a life transformed by the Lordship of Jesus and the work of the Spirit.
My definition of gospel is much broader than "turn or burn" - I like the idea that the ευαγγελιον that the gospel writers speak of is the good news of the arrival of the King of God's Kingdom, who transforms things eventually into their new creation form.
I think this is nice and consistent with the Roman context of the "good news" as heralding the arrival of a new emperor and calling on the subjects to respond accordingly.
Revelation 14:6-7 seems to fit with my understanding.
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that supporting the institution already in place precludes replacing it with another - for example - I think Wilberforce would have treated slaves he encountered with love (and a concern for their freedom, and for their salvation) while fighting for the greater cause of abolition. Why not do both. Your caricature of my position is full of dichotomies. I'm currently all about nuance. Grey is the new black. In varying shades.
Ah, us Puritans take our grey in shades of black. Where possible we wear nothing but black. We find it…soothing.
I agree that Wilberforce would have treated slaves he encountered with love. I don’t think that has anything at all to do with what we’re discussing. Treating slaves with love is hardly supporting the institution in place, or even ‘becoming part of the solution’ (to use your preferred phrase). I don’t think he owned slaves, invested in shares in slave trading companies, sat on the boards of slave trading companies and the like. I think Wilberforce tried to do everything he could to bring the institution to an end, and refrained from doing anything that would help it keep going. So I think he’s a strong argument against your nuanced position, and more in favour of my caricature of your position.
You talk about "supporting the system" where I talk about "becoming part of the solution." Part of that solution, as things presently stand, is being part of the school community and even engaging in such things as the P&C.
Yes, I agree, if compulsory schooling is a good system. I’ll be doing that myself. If it’s not, then that’s not part of the solution, it’s helping prop up a system that needs to be replaced for the wellbeing of children.
I think it's interesting that we're generally so keen to buy into the findings of actual science and so keen to dismiss the social sciences - I don't think we arrived at our current system of education by accident. Nor do those who are trained as educators
Well, I’m a big fan of social science findings and am somewhat sceptical about some scientific findings, so I wouldn’t fit that category. I’m also married to a teacher who is also not convinced that this is necessarily the one right way to educate children. So when you say ‘nor do those who are trained as educators’ as though all people trained in education support compulsory schooling I struggle a bit to see how your position is ‘all about nuance’. In my experience, most of the best criticisms of the current system come from people involved in education.
My observation from talking to teachers is that a lot of the changes in education are driven by fads among those who teach education to teachers and among those who shape policy in the education departments.
More fundamentally, what we have is an educational approach that more or less ignores nature and so takes children away from the home environment and puts them in the exclusive care of people specially trained and formally licensed by the state, that uses one single method to teach all kids, and that forces them all to learn with kids their own age and irrespective of developmental differences within that age range. It’s a method where a monopoly is more or less enforced by the state but where there are no consequences for failure to deliver – the only requirement is that people attend the institution, the focus of compulsion is not on any outcomes from attending. That is not a method that I think you would come up with today if you were making something from scratch and social science was doing the driving. We might be able to make it work, but it has all the hallmarks of something contrived in the nineteenth century when people had grandiose ideas about how properly applied reason could reshape the world for the better and so constructed institutions from abstract ideas about what should work.
(This is yet another attempt to publish this comment).
ReplyDeleteHi Nathan,
I agree you’re saying that school is a good place for ministry to happen. My point is that ministry works out of where you are and who you are, not so much out of abstract ideas of what’s the best strategy. If you think that sending your kids to the local school is a bad educational choice, does it have integrity, as an educational decision to do it ‘for the sake of the gospel’?
Just because school is a good place for ministry is not sufficient reason to send kids there. “Why are your kids here?” “Not for any educational reason, just because it’s the best way for me to minister to the most people.” At least Simone has another reason that has to do with education that sits alongside her great commission principle, and so prevents her decision from subordinating education to something that isn’t really to do with it.
Again, what we've done in the last 1900 years, unless we have a real education revolution is irrelevant. How parents, and those wanting to be parents, and those who are educators think about the issue today, in our current situation, seems much more useful.
No, it’s not irrelevant. It can’t be just picked up and used without more work, but the fact that families faced this issue of “how do our children fulfil the great commission if they don’t go to school” for almost two thousand years and solved it in lots of different social and educational contexts means we could draw on that to be just a little bit less parochial in our thinking.
(...continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteYou're setting this up in diametric opposition to Simone's suggestion, and then my suggestion - when in fact I think it's part and parcel of sending your kids to a public school. To not take those responsibilities is to abdicate your role as a parent completely - I don't think any position taken with response to a child's education, of those surveyed in Simone's post, fall into that category. You've moved the goalposts to parenting in general, not education as a subset of parenting.
Not really. The choice to homeschool is a choice to integrate education into parenting rather than outsource it. My point is that if you make that choice, then that choice is also going to give you the resources for your great commission strategy. You won’t focus on encouraging your children in their evangelism away from the family, you’ll be intentional about making family life inherently evangelistic. Sure you and Simone can do that as well, I was pointing out that your claim about ‘poor children with no contact with the secular world and real unbelievers’ is moving close to a strawman – if you make education part of family life, then you’ve made a decision that family life is going to be the engine room of much of what you’re doing to form your children as Christian adults.
I think teaching your children to engage with a secular world is important, so I would need to see how that could possibly happen in a home school context.
Come on, Nathan, I know you’re keen for your particular idea. But you can do much better than this. Use your imagination and ask yourself what you would do if you had to homeschool. Would you just throw your hands up and decide it was now impossible to be a faithful Christian? Off the top of my head:
+Work at neighbourhood friendships
+Be involved in sports and community clubs and things like scouts
+Have regular meals at the local pub as a family
It’s not school or nothing at all, mate.
I'm listening... Keep going!
ReplyDelete"Treating slaves with love is hardly supporting the institution in place,"
ReplyDeleteMy point, of course, was that Wilberforce acted within the boundaries of the system while seeking to overthrow it.
If a revolution is what you're after surely a revolution from within has more legs than an educational coup-de-tat.
" So I think he’s a strong argument against your nuanced position, and more in favour of my caricature of your position."
Only if you're arguing that public schooling is the moral equivalent of the slave trade.
"I’m also married to a teacher who is also not convinced that this is necessarily the one right way to educate children. So when you say ‘nor do those who are trained as educators’ as though all people trained in education support compulsory schooling I struggle a bit to see how your position is ‘all about nuance’"
You're not the only one married to a teacher. Our wives apparently differ on educational philosophy. It was her expertise I was deferring to at this point. And I guess those who set up the system based on their research and training. I have a little faith in bureaucracy to inefficiently produce good outcomes.
"that uses one single method to teach all kids, and that forces them all to learn with kids their own age and irrespective of developmental differences within that age range."
That's a pretty simplistic view of modern teaching.
"If you think that sending your kids to the local school is a bad educational choice, does it have integrity, as an educational decision to do it ‘for the sake of the gospel’?"
I think it's at best a neutral educational decision. I think we idolise a "good education" in a really unhelpful way. We have more access to information and learning than we ever need. And I believe fundamentally the responsibility for an education falls on the parents, and as the child grows, the child themselves. I chose what to listen to, and what not to, from a pretty early age.
"“Why are your kids here?” “Not for any educational reason, just because it’s the best way for me to minister to the most people.”"
My position would be better expressed as: I don't believe the quality of education will differ too much from option A to option B - therefore I will choose the option that opens up the most ministry opportunities for our family.
"I was pointing out that your claim about ‘poor children with no contact with the secular world and real unbelievers’ is moving close to a strawman"
My claim has always been equally, if not more, focused on the poor parents and their contact with the secular world and unbelievers - and the potential that being involved in a school community presents.
"Come on, Nathan, I know you’re keen for your particular idea. But you can do much better than this."
I probably left off the "better than engaging with a school community" there...
"Use your imagination and ask yourself what you would do if you had to homeschool. Would you just throw your hands up and decide it was now impossible to be a faithful Christian?"
No. But I think being part of a school community is better. I don't think I've ever suggested it's a dichotomy. And if I've given that impression I apologise. I just like the idea of thinking "how will I encounter the most people in the most natural way through this decision regarding the education of my children."
"It’s not school or nothing at all, mate."
I don't know where I argued that.
Loved that exchange, gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteMark, you have just articulated a couple of years of thinking Steve and I have gone through with this issue, as we gear up for the first child to have to enter some sort of formal schooling. I'll be linking and quoting. Thank you. And thanks f hosting, Simone.
Can I add another thought? My trouble with both the "pro public school for the sake of the gospel" position is the same as my problem with many Christian schools. They both tend to treat children as if they are regenerate. Dangerous assumption.
Sorry, being married to one, I'm going to stick up for teachers everywhere (except perhaps Canada), and dispute loudly with Mark's assertion that teachers in state schools (and perhaps the rest) are there for the pay packet and not because they love the kids.
ReplyDeleteYep, just like I'm in ministry for the pay packet and not because I love the people.
Sure, teachers aren't parents. But the vast majority of them do the job because they love the kids to an appropriate degree.
And speaking from my own experience, I can count at least nine of my teachers that I knew _at the time_ were teaching me out of love, not duty. In a fallen world, I'll take those odds for kids in most cases. At least by getting a shot at multiple teacher experiences, all school kids get a chance. Those with dud parents only get one chance if they're at home watching Oprah...
Simone, I'm not convinced that a and b are mutually exclusive. In fact, if a is true, then I'd suggest b implies a to a significant degree. Christian kids are allowed to suffer for the gospel a bit too.
Okay, let's see if I can move it forward in a summarised form, seeing Simone wants us to keep going :) :
ReplyDelete1. Wilberforce acted within the bounds of society and the law, he didn't try and overturn slavery by being involved in the institution and overturning it from within. I don't think there's any moral equivalence between his cause and this issue, so I didn't invoke him - you did. But his example is against what you're arguing for. You think there's nothing in the decision for against a state school and so your approach falls out fairly naturally. He thought it really mattered whether you owned slaves, bought goods made through slave labor and the like.
If the example you invoked is relevant, then it counts against you.
2. I wasn't invoking my wife's training to pull rank, but to undercut your suggestion that everyone trained in education supports the current system. The critics are hardly in a majority - critics and revolutionaries rarely are. My point was that they are there.
But we're probably in very strong disagreement about just trusting elites that they know what they're doing because they're the experts. I don't think that even church leaders should just be trusted - ultimately I want final power in the church in the hands of the laity as a whole. I'm ultimately a democrat, not someone who trusts in experts as my basic stance. So I don't just trust bureacracies to know what they're doing.
3. I'm willing to be convinced that my view of modern teaching is simplistic, but last time I checked schools put a large number of children with one teacher in a group setting. Unless that teacher is doing something unusual they can only use one method for the whole group, even if that method is 'do it your way'. The group is organised by age, not by any other primary category. They do 'year nine maths' not 'stage three maths' - where anyone at any age does it as long as they met the preconditions.
4. I can see that you and Simone agree that there's nothing in the decision - a school is a school and the structure of learning doesn't matter. That's useful to flush out.
ReplyDeleteMy point was what about the person who doesn't agree with you at that point, who thinks it actually does matter? Your approach works for you and Simone, but not for most Christians. If you thought the decision of where I send my kids mattered for their education then you would probably have a different approach.
For the record, I think you and Simone are being naive at this point. It's like people saying, "It doesn't matter if homosexual marriage is legalised/no fault divorce is introduced/money is given to single mothers, it won't affect my marriage/approach to having kids out of wedlock."
Institutions shape culture and the practice of being involved in them shapes people. I think it can be argued that general literacy, comprehension, and ability to follow abstract arguments has decreased during the period that compulsory schooling has been pursued - even though we're swimming in information. That's correlation, not necessarily causation, but I think it could be argued that overall we function at a lower level than our predecessors did towards the end of the nineteenth century.
My experience of learning was transformed by leaving a slightly above average state school and going to a very good university. I think it's just absurd to claim that there's nothing in the decision about what structure of learning we pursue. Our experience tells us otherwise - as you've indicated when you say you trust the bureacracy to deliver good outcomes, not neutral outcomes that don't matter anyway.
5. I agree that you have argued primarily more about parents. But you also made some strong statements about children too. Arguments I offer about that can't really be refuted by returning back to your primary focus on parents.
Hi Simone I have stumbled here through Cathy M's blog site ….. this is the first time I have visited you :) My interest in this topic brought me here and I have valued reading this and some of the other links from here.
ReplyDeleteHaving not read your initial post I want to tread very carefully cos I know I don't have all the facts. For what it's worth, I'm a C but I'm not sure I'm able to say what the better question is. I have liked a lot of what Mark has had to say.
My hubby and I have schooled our kids at home for the first few years based on the following reasoning; Firstly, we took seriously our God given responsibility to train them in His ways and secondly, we understood from scripture that there is war going on in every human heart. From that, and our personal set of circumstances, we concluded that 5 times 6 hours per week during their young formative years was a lot of time for them to be open to the 'counsel of the wicked' and potentially 'standing in the way of sinners or sitting in the seat of mockers' Psalm 1. We knew that their heart's were already bent against God, and inclined to be drawn to the ways of the wicked.
Of course, I am talking about state schooling here (which was pretty much our only alternative), not Christian schooling. Coupled with this was the knowledge that personal faith, gospel ownership, gospel living and clear gospel proclamation are things that are not found in the average 5 year old heading off to school. These essential factors need to be personally owned and trained into the child/Christian who will operate in the desired mission-minded way you have spoken of. Our approach was to distance- educate them, while at the same time prepare them with a good gospel/ bible knowledge, and lots of family training/modeling in engaging non-christians etc.
Now our older kids (10 & 12) are in the state school, while the 4 & 8 year old are still home. The training still continues, and I am glad that we were able to have them home a bit longer. I'm not saying this is the way every Christian family should do it. I guess my point is that these issues need to be thought through carefully, and prayed through, by every parent who wants to see their children grow to be people who honour Jesus in this dark world.
(BTW the teachers at our local school get the kids to call them by their first names, so it's not just home-schoolers who do it!)
Hi Cath,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, and I'm glad it was helpful for you. I was beginning to wonder if all I'd managed to do was highjack Simone's thread yet again.
They both tend to treat children as if they are regenerate. Dangerous assumption.
Now that you say it out loud, that could be influencing me too. I don't think I became a Christian until after my first year at Uni. I doubt trying to get me involved in the great commission at school would have gone all that well. So a strategy based around that (at least in part) just doesn't sit well with me. What if my Father doesn't breathe his Spirit on my sons until after they've left school?
That doesn't lead me to homeschool as the solution, but I don't like the process of thinking that's led to Simone's and Nathan's approach. What happens to the kid that is clearly unregenerate throughout their schooling if they're at a public school in large part to be involved in the Great Commission?
Hi Anthony,
I'm going to stick up for teachers everywhere (except perhaps Canada), and dispute loudly with Mark's assertion that teachers in state schools (and perhaps the rest) are there for the pay packet and not because they love the kids.
:) Yeah, that was really cheeky, wasn't it.
I think what I would say as a more (ahem) nuanced position, is that most teachers don't teach for the pay in the sense that that's why they chose the profession. They do it for pay in the sense that if they cease being a teacher they cease teaching children.
Most people in ministry who should be there did it before they were paid to do it and continue doing it when they are no longer paid to do it. That's not the case with most teachers.
And 'care about' was too weak. I should have just gone with my first instincts and said 'love'. I think kids flourish more if they spend lots of time with people who love them even if they're hamfisted about it than with people who care about children, are well trained in teaching, but don't, at the end of the day, love these particular ones.
I think usually love trumps expertise when it comes to relationships and to child development. I wouldn't say 'the Bible says so' but that conviction is derived from biblical data.
I can count at least nine of my teachers that I knew _at the time_ were teaching me out of love, not duty.
It was a lot less for me, but the exceptions really had an impact, I'll agree wholeheatedly.
Those with dud parents only get one chance if they're at home watching Oprah...
ReplyDeleteThis is where I'm torn, what's next is just chewing aloud provocatively, hardly what I hold to.
I'm just not sure how much we can save children from bad parents. I think parents have too much influence on their own. I don't get the impression that we have that many kids with terrible homes who manage to escape them because of a great state school system.
And trying to create an institution where that is part of its goal seems to run the risk of robbing the vast majority of children who don't need a structure to save them from their own fathers and mothers. The school has to accommodate these kids, so it has to aim lower than what it could if it could be more selective, which means it does less educating of the majority who could go a lot further and learn more if the 'problem children' didn't have to be in the same classes. And the 'problem children' have the awful experience of having learning forced on them that they don't want for year after year, and so we get illiterate and frustrated high schoolers falling further and further behind yet being promoted every year to the next grade because they need to be kept with their age group.
I generally think we should create institutions to promote the good for people who are going to cooperate (the overwhelming majority), not try and undo damage that, in this issue, involves trying to undercut parental authority and weaken parent-child bonds. I think that asks more of schools than is reasonable.
Far too much to respond to here... but let me cherry pick. Assume if I don't cover the point that I either agree, or feel like we've been over it... actually, I'll just make some points.
ReplyDelete1. The system Wilberforce worked within was not the system of slavery but the system of government. The education revolution you seem to be tacitly proposing involves a rejection of working with the government. A democratic government - and a bureaucracy that works with experts and those who have studied educational theory and conducted research. Sure, school may not be perfect - but I think it's safe to believe that education practices are evolving in a positive, not negative manner. This is possibly mitigated by increasingly difficult kids.
2. I question who benefits in the decision to not send your kids to public school other than your children. I think Christian decisions consider the other.
3. As I've said, I'm more interested in the great commission opportunities presented to parents than to children through public schooling - I think the benefits to children are that they turn out as normal kids equipped to deal with and be part of the secular world. Who hopefully, by spending time with the lost, develop a passion for the lost. This has an impact on their great commission behaviour as adults.
Even if children of Christian parents aren't regenerate - they're coming from a pretty different family background and can vicariously offer care and support to needy classmates. This is how it worked in my experience - and to think kids don't talk about their parent's faith to each other in public schools is a little naive - regenerate or not, it's part of ensuring Christian views are represented from an early age. This will be increasingly important as RE/RI becomes less of a factor.
4. I went to bad public schools and turned out ok. Probably half my year group from my Brisbane high school are in prison or drug addled. I don't think my school had much to do with the outcome. I think I've turned out ok, and I think that's more likely due to parental input.
5. I think many of my teachers were better equipped to instruct me on the subjects I studied than my parents.
6. I think the "one fits all" approach doesn't actually happen in the classroom - it's impossible. Children learn at different paces and have different personalities and behaviour issues. Teachers are trained to deal with that. It's part of the job. They are professionals (in the main). Your approach seems to be advocating putting a passionate amateur in the place of a passionate or dispassionate professional. I think in most cases the professional will do a better job.
7. "The school has to accommodate these kids, so it has to aim lower than what it could if it could be more selective, which means it does less educating of the majority who could go a lot further and learn more if the 'problem children' didn't have to be in the same classes."
ReplyDeleteBy the time education really matters this is happening through the choosing of subjects. I didn't hang around with the dumb kids at school because I did the hard subjects. I think you're overstating your case at this point. Plus, I think there's something to be said for the elite to be forced to hang around and understand the plebs - lest they become elitist snobs when they grow up. Learning that you're part of a diverse generation is helpful. How do you do this in a home school context?
8. I am convinced that it takes a village to raise a child. Imagine if I'd turned out just like my father.
9. I think the thinking leading to Simone's and my approach is entirely appropriate. What role does the Great Commission play in the approach you're advocating - which seems to be "don't participate in the less than optimal system, plan to overthrow it."
I don't generally use emoticons so know that that is tongue in cheek.
I would suggest there is a direct correlation between providing an education for the masses and society improving. Especially for the poor and disadvantaged. Who ultimately benefit from having smart, normal, kids alongside them at school. If we pull all the kids coming from stable families out of public schools, and put all the kids who can afford to be in private schools into private schools - then what happens to the genius child from the impoverished broken family? They grow up to become dictators because they don't have good childhood friends who balance their revolutionary views as they grow up.
Also Mark, just in case we've hijacked this thread - I've written about my "Gospel Utilitarianism" here.
ReplyDelete"Learning that you're part of a diverse generation is helpful. How do you do this in a home school context?"
ReplyDeleteNathan, we are not homeschooling, but I have observed families who:
-home educate (usually for a while, not the entirety of their children's formal schooling -not many actually do in Aus)
-Share a missional & reformed evangelical world view
These families have produced children (many of whom are now godly, competent adults) who deal with diversity much better than most.
How? Learning in diverse environments (never just at home), with all sorts of people (it seems to be only the "homestead homeschoolers" who might be as insular as you imagine). Public school is not the only way to learn about diversity.
It seems that one of the effects of throwing 20-30 kids the same age (really not the peak of diversity!) to socialise each other and pool their ignorance is to breed less tolerance and love of diversity.
We see the impact in our churches where whole congregations are built around being with people the same age and stage as ourselves. Which means unbiblical, unhealthy churches.
Maybe if our churches were more diverse, and set up in a way where we weren't all split up into women/men/children/youth/unichurch/seniors ministry, our kids would have a better place to see diversity (united around Jesus)? Regardless of which school they attend.
It seems narrow and very uncreative to think that the only way we will be able to meet people who don't know Jesus is through our kids being at a local public school. Do we live in that much of a vacuum? Maybe this is a harder issue for people in paid ministry?
The "regenerate children" issue: the danger I was referring to is the presumption and nominalism that I've seen heaps of kids grow into (as adults), because it was always assumed they were Christian, when they weren't. In this case, the problem isn't the schooling, it is the parents.
"Even if children of Christian parents aren't regenerate - they're coming from a pretty different family background and can vicariously offer care and support to needy classmates. This is how it worked in my experience - and to think kids don't talk about their parent's faith to each other in public schools is a little naive - regenerate or not, it's part of ensuring Christian views are represented from an early age. This will be increasingly important as RE/RI becomes less of a factor."
ReplyDeleteNathan, after a little more thought, I wonder if your point sounds like using our (possibly unregenerate) kids to do what we should be doing? (kids telling other kids about what their parent's believe). Wouldn't a "family to family" approach to mission have more integrity?
Another question: The Great Commission is not just to tell people about Jesus, but to teach them to obey him. Making contact in schools is just the tip of the iceberg of actually obeying the Great Commission. This is about lifelong obedience.
Presence in public schools might mean Jesus' name is symbolically represented in one public space, but can people really be trained to obey him in all of life in that context?
And another question (sorry Simone!)...
If more families could do what Mark suggested - drop to a single income so that there is more time and flexbility to obey the Great commission in the community- perhaps we wouldn't need to rely so much on our school decision for our primary mission strategy?
If we were less busy, we could be able to be "missional" in so many other ways.
"it seems to be only the "homestead homeschoolers" who might be as insular as you imagine"
ReplyDeleteCathy, this is one of the perils of using generalisations to make a point... I don't know what context you're coming from, but this sort of stereotype of home schools seems to mesh with my experience of homeschooling in Queensland. Many inner city home schoolers I've met have been "homestead homeschool" style home schoolers. And, I can't remember if I said this here, or on Simone's original post (or even on my post) most home schoolers turn out as normal adults, but they are not normal children. In my experience home schooling produces children who are mature beyond their years and much more comfortable socialising with adults than their peers.
"It seems narrow and very uncreative to think that the only way we will be able to meet people who don't know Jesus is through our kids being at a local public school."
Firstly, it may be our only way of meeting some people. We may be able to meet other people in other ways. But the hypothetical family from across the suburb needs the gospel as much as the hypothetical family next door and the hypothetical family whose son plays on your son's soccer team. I think we need to consider how we can meet all of these hypothetical families in our orbit - not say "it's enough that I meet these families here." This is the nature of being part of the few amongst the many.
Indeed, but thinking about this issue in the context of Clayfield (which Simone is, and which I am) where it's a suburb with very few community hubs (from my observation it's the school and Rotary...). Many people from our church don't live in the suburb we're aiming to reach, so don't have neighbours, so choosing to be involved in the school community for Simone is, I think, a pretty legitimate great commission decision.
I think then, by extension, it's a good place to be part of mission and that should be a factor in all our decisions. In my "missional" thinking. Is it the only factor? No. And I don't think anybody is suggesting that. But is it the deciding factor? Maybe. It's "a" deciding factor for me.
"Do we live in that much of a vacuum?"
Some might. But even it is not a vacuum the fact that it is an opportunity must surely be considered.
"Maybe this is a harder issue for people in paid ministry?"
It certainly is. I've said that myself. Here and on the original post. People in paid ministry tend to be naturally isolated from interactions with non-Christian colleagues and other opportunities that being in a normal 9-5 job present.
"Wouldn't a "family to family" approach to mission have more integrity?"
ReplyDeleteYes, but aren't you setting up a false dichotomy? Being a good Presbyterian I assume children of the covenant can be regenerate anyway I guess... so this whole question is moot.
But doesn't any appointment to a ministry position involve working with assumed regeneracy, isn't Paul ok with unregenerate people preaching Christ so long as Christ is preached?
"Making contact in schools is just the tip of the iceberg of actually obeying the Great Commission. This is about lifelong obedience. "
Indeed, but aren't we just arguing that the Great Commission should be part of the decision about schooling? Not that it is complete obedience to the commission, just that it is an opportunity to go about our role under the Great Commission? I don't think any of us have argued that it's the whole iceberg. But how can we explore the rest of the iceberg if we refuse to explore the tip?
"but can people really be trained to obey him in all of life in that context?"
I don't know if any of my words have suggested that sending your kids to public schools removes the need to also send them to church. Or to be part of church.
"If more families could do what Mark suggested - drop to a single income so that there is more time and flexbility to obey the Great commission in the community - perhaps we wouldn't need to rely so much on our school decision for our primary mission strategy?"
I kind of get the feeling that for that strategy to work entirely you'd need all the non-Christian parents to be doing the same thing. If these parents are finding their "community" needs met by being part of the school community, and spending the rest of their time at work and home, then we need to get them either at work, at home, or at school...
This is a simplistic presentation of the issue - but community life has changed across our culture, so we need to change how we engage with our culture.
Nathan and Mark,
ReplyDelete"In the current context that will always mean softpedalling the gospel’s demand for wide-ranging repentance from people."
But that's not actually the gospel. Is it?"
I guess my question is then, what was Peter doing telling people: "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"? And Jesus himself said, "unless you repent, you too will also perish". Or are we talking about a different definition of repentance?
And Nathan, as a “good Presbyterian”, what about what the Westminster Confession says about “repentance unto life”?
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI think you're missing my point. I think repentance is part of the gospel - but it is not the totality of the gospel.
I think the confession gets it right. Because it doesn't stop at "repentance" but adds "unto life"...
What is the life it's talking about? I think it's the life lived with Jesus as Lord, which I think includes living lives concerned for the poor and lost, devoted to the spread of the gospel and longing for the new creation.
I think my position in this argument majors on the first two of these, while Mark wants to start bringing about the new created order here. Which is admirable, if abstract and idealistic.
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDelete1. I agree that the system Wilberforce worked with was government – he obeyed the law, he worked within democratic structures to create change. I don’t think he worked with government ‘departments’ whose job it was to manage and oversee an institution he disagreed with.
I’m advocating much the same thing. Obey the law, don’t be involved with an institution that you think is wrong. If you really think it matters strongly then pursue democratic means to seek a fundamental change to the whole system. But to say, “Wilberforce campaigned democratically to get rid of slavery so we should send our kids to public schools and sit on P&C committees” seems very strained.
2. I’m not advocating not working with government. Government allows the right (that’s an awful phrase) of homeschooling. Taking up that right is working with government.
If the government made homeschooling illegal then the nature of the question would change substantially and one would have to conclude that compulsory schooling is actively harmful (either in itself, or for arrogating to the state a compulsion that it does not legitimately have) and not just significantly sub-optimal to go down that route.
3. I absolutely reject your optimism that experts should just be trusted because they’ve done the research.
I talk with doctors, even Christian ones, who cannot accept the idea that a few cells in a dish is a human being. They want a blank cheque to determine ‘medically’ when ‘it’ becomes a human being. And if, like Jennie and I, you ever go down the IVF route you better not just trust the experts. The ‘expert’ position based on research and theory is that you let a crop of embryos mature, grade them as to how viable they are, transplant one, freeze the other ‘A’ grades, and leave the rest to cease their biological activity on the tabletop. And there’s (and I quote) ‘no moral issue there’. If you don’t want to be complicit in that, you’ll need to not trust them and think of a way around their infernally efficient system.
In psychology experts have determined that homosexual attraction is normal. And now have determined that children don’t need a father and a mother for their formation – two of the same gender will do just as well (unless of cause they’re both women, then the outcome is even better we’re assured). And so in both in parts of the U.S. and all of England you can’t be a relationship counsellor or an adoption agency unless you are prepared to work with homosexual couples.
In law there’s a strong strain of judicial theory that more-or-less ignores the actual wording of constitutions and laws, let alone the authorial intent, and ‘discovers’ a meaning alien to the whole purpose of the law. The Castle is a great example of this – where a provision in the Australian Constitution intended to ensure that government could forcibly possess someone’s house if they paid market price is used to say that government can’t forcibly possess someone’s house. And so justice is not so much a matte of law, but of what judges think is right.
In field after field experts want the right to determine, not just the mechanics of how to do things, but the fundamental operating assumptions as though it is a non-moral issue, but just an issue of ‘expert knows best’. I think it is going to be the sword to turn ‘religious freedom’ into an ever shrinking and ultimately meaningless concept. I’d happily round up every kid in Christendom and send them to school myself if we could open our eyes and see what’s developing before us on this issue.
4. The people who benefit from my decision to educate my children are my children. Just as the people who benefit from my decision to support my parents are my parents. Love involves specific people – your family, your neighbour – not ‘humanity’.
ReplyDeleteThe people who benefit from my decision to stand up for a parent’s right to raise their children as they see fit? Well that is probably everybody. We all benefit when the state is restrained in how much of family life it arrogates to its own experts. And rights that are not exercised sooner or later fall into desuetude.
5. I think you give the game away completely on the child development front when you say: most home schoolers turn out as normal adults, but they are not normal children. In my experience home schooling produces children who are mature beyond their years and much more comfortable socialising with adults than their peers.
If home schooling produces maturity and results in normal adults, then isn’t that what we want? Given that schooling is the century and a half innovation and ‘home schooling’ is the norm for humanity, isn’t the comparison the other way around? ‘Home schooling’ produces children who are more or less appropriately mature for their age, because that’s what children had up until a century ago – that’s ‘normal’. Schooling produces children who are significantly immature for their age and who unnecessarily struggle to socialise with (and so be formed by) adult company and so are pushed to be formed by hanging out with other, unnecessarily immature, children?
If you stop assuming that schooling is just obvious, doesn’t the fact that homeschooling produces maturity faster, and a opens up a comfortableness with adult society faster, act to strongly commend it as a preferred option?
Why do you want your children to be immature and to struggle to fit in with adult society?
6. Hanging out with different kids doesn’t really help make kids tolerant or value diversity.
I forget the book I read recently, but it was a couple of New York Times journalists looking at current research on a bunch of these myths (that they believed themselves before looking at the research) that are foundational for modern schooling and parenting. At the moment the evidence seems to point the other way. Tolerant kids are formed by tolerant parents not by just pushing kids together to hang out with each other as the basic social environment.
Pushing kids together to hang out with each other and socialise each other seems to encourage conformism, a focus on fads, a lack of historical perspective, and an inability to resist peer group pressure. It doesn’t help them become good adults – they need lots of time with adults who care about them to do that, because it is something that is learned.
7. What children need to be able to function as adults is not rocket science. Most parents can teach their children what those children need to be adults. They know it themselves. They can read books with their children on important topics and discuss it with their children. Specialised subjects that form the precondition for further study could be taught by specialised things – people could learn everything from advanced maths and science to car mechanics and manual arts by more specialised and intensive sessions with institutions similar to a community college.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, if you argue (as you have strongly) that what really counts is not the school – a bad school and bad teachers can be overcome if the home environment is good – then your whole pro-school argument falls over at this point. If the home environment is the key and the schooling is secondary, then pushing the schooling back into the home so the parents are actively involved in teaching (and so in learning because you have to learn to be able to teach) is the more logical approach based upon the very educational principles you have been arguing for. Getting parents as the drivers of education would have a much better effect on most kids’ learning than putting them in the hands of good teachers. It would make education a huge investment in the parents’ time and so would make it a key feature of the family values – and we both agree that that’s the real key to student outcomes.
8. One size fits all does occur. The curriculum is fixed and is fixed by age. Those developing late fall behind. Those who develop fast, or who are exceptionally good in that field, are held back. Schools don’t quite teach to the lowest common denominator, but they do teach to a common denominator that is much lower than average – if they didn’t they’d lose most of the kids. And over time, that is a strategy for constantly lowering the bar. If you aim down people will drop down to where you are. If you aim high, most will struggle, but they’ll get there.
I know of no university lecturer with significant teaching experience who believes that schooling has produced better results over the time of their career. I know of many who are strongly convinced that their incoming students are dumber, more ignorant, less interested in working hard to learn, and have less of a grasp on what used to be considered basic than they used to. Some of them have even been able to point me to fairly concrete evidence to back that opinion up.
And when you go back in time the results seem even more staggering. The level at which ordinary people used to read – I’ve heard people say that mid-nineteenth century grammar books intended for children in fifth grade were written at a level that we would consider undergraduate. Whereas our newspapers are written (I’ve heard) for a contemporary 12 y.o. reading level.
Presidential debates in the nineteenth century went for hours and involved substantial abstract arguments. The public can’t handle that now, and doesn’t consider that decline anything to mourn over.
I think if we didn’t just assume schooling was the way to go, there’s evidence to suggest that it may actually be part of the problem – not a solution that is struggling because of things outside its control.
9. I think the thinking leading to Simone's and my approach is entirely appropriate. What role does the Great Commission play in the approach you're advocating
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely none. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. Nothing-at-all.
The Great Commission plays no role in my courting of my wife, my loving of her now, my honouring of my parents, my trust in my Lord, my love for my God, or the enjoyment I share with Simone for the High School Musicals.
I open my Bible, and say to myself, “What role should the great commission play in how I am a father to my children” I turn to the OT law that discusses a parent’s role. Hmmmn nothing there. I turn to the wisdom literature. Nothing there either. I turn to Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and his instructions to fathers. What do you know, nothing again.
Then I turn to Nathan and Simone and blow raspberries at you both. I then, in my irenic and gentle way say something likely to lower the emotional pitch of the discussion such as, “Stop trying to be little Moseses and binding the consciences of Christians where the word of God has not spoken. Trust God to know what he’s doing and where he has not made a link that you think he should have just close your mouth and don’t try and help him out.”
My fathering of my children is an end in itself. It is not a means to some other end. I don’t father my children to further the great commission. Jennie doesn’t have sex with me to strengthen my ministry (another daft piece of law that’s doing the rounds at the moment). I don’t forbid Christians from eating meat in Lent, require ministers to be single (or get married), require Christians not to drink alcohol, or withhold the cup from the laity. I respect the silences of Scripture as well as what it says. I don’t abstract from it one principle (such as ‘gospel’) that I then use as a engine to derive a whole new bunch of laws to put on people’s consciences that God never said.
My goal is to produce faithful Christians for sons. A big part of that means that they live their lives for the furthering of the gospel. I am free to pursue that end any way I think is right and wise. If I have a child who is highly social, mature, a natural leader, and very self-directed then sending him into a school from year dot may well be the best way to achieve that goal. He’ll most naturally learn by doing if he’s that kind of kid. But if I have a kid who is a natural follower, who is either highly introverted or very socially awkward, or who tends to just fall in with what everyone around him is doing then that possibly would be a very bad way of meeting that goal.
It is hard for me to express how much I see red about this issue. Stop creating laws for each other that everyone has to do because someone has slapped a theological reason on it. Give people the freedom to address things on a case by case basis and seek prayerfully to make a wise decision. Resource that by teaching the knowledge of God and it’s implications properly. But stop shortcutting it for people by just telling them what God wants them to do when we can’t find anything like that in the Bible. When God hasn’t said something there’s a reason for it. Just trust him for a change.
Hi Mark.
ReplyDeleteI've written a couple of replies to things along the way then not hit post because I have learnt something about the dangers of posting in haste.
I was well aware from the start that in stating my opinions on this stuff that I was breaking my own strongly held views on freedom and not legislating where the bible doesn't. I've argued with many who I think have done this on gender issues etc.
But I did include in my first post the point that God hasn't laid down a law on these things so we are free to choose as we will - even though I really really wish people would choose state schools.
Let me get personal. I'm sure you can see why I feel strongly about this. I can see this fantastic harvest, ripe for the picking. Every week at RE I get to teach the bible to hundreds of children. Those kids don't come to our church. Mostly they don't go to any church. And they won't unless their parents take them. It would really be lovely if there were more christian parents around so the kids could know some christian kids and their parents could know some christian parents. I'm not suggesting really active evangelism. Just being there would be a great start. There have been some comments that 5 year olds aren't ready to go out as evangelists. In my experience they are often more ready than their parents are. 5 year olds that I know are pretty able and willing to answer the questions that other 5 year olds have.
There is no law. But every decision we make does effects people other than us (I know what you wrote on this. Don't agree.)
Wish you were all in my lounge room and then we could argue this out properly. I find I hate typing this kind of thing.
s
And I want us to think broadly about the issue. Maybe a different structure would be better for children and would make evangelism easier. Maybe it wouldn't. But don't just take what's there for granted.
ReplyDeleteThe best analogy I can give is the fight over Seeker Sensitive Services. Those pushing them in the states could wave the evangelism card hard. But over time it seems that such services make genuine evangelism more difficult in that context because they actually feed into the consumer mentality of a lot of floating 'evangelicals' and push churches to compete with each for that 'market' and so dumb down the Christian faith and life in the competition. Structures need to justify themselves. We shouldn't just assume them because they offer evangelistic opportunities right now. Sometimes they make evangelism harder in the long term.
I genuinely am not sure that schooling isn't making evangelism harder for us over time. I'm not convinced it isn't, I just don't know. But I'd like that issue on the table too. Dumb people who value their peer group primarily, disdain wisdom, prefer not to read, and struggle with serious thinking are a hard group to evangelise. If schooling is contributing to that outcome maybe we should look at it hard.
I really, really want to know what high school Nathan went to!
ReplyDeleteOh for pity's sake! Attempt the third, and it should have been before my comment above:
ReplyDeleteHi Simone,
I have to say that the thought of hanging out with you and Andrew and talking over something like this is a great balm as I sit here in my study room working on ancient theologians.
I think it's great to attempt this publicly by typing even though it's far more fun to do it face to face. I think the public-yet-personal dimension of blogs, and especially comment threads, could be a great mechanism for Christian discipleship - it's where people get to listen in as people wrestle with strongly held beliefs and how they cash out in practice. I'm thrilled you're going this way, and hope you find a way to make it work for you.
Unfortunately some unnamed person :) took your first post offline so I can't see what you said originally. Your post above makes no such qualification and we were supposed to focus on that for the conversation to continue and Nathan, who at this point was presenting himself as championing a shared position of you both, was certainly not qualifying his position any such way. I apologise for lumping you together like this.
However, if you recognise that, even with your qualification in your first post, you were breaking your strongly held principle that you share with me, then I'm not sure that I'm the person you should be angry with.
The thrust of your position was not to say that this was counsel that you were offering for people to weigh up and take as they saw wise and for which some Scriptural teaching could be adduced to ground it. It had far, far more ring of the imperative about it in tone even if you'd explicitly qualified that at a single point. You were laying something on our conscience - it was "Law lite" to Nathan's "Law".
Either fight for it and take me on if you think that it really can be justified when everything is taken into account, or make it clear that it is really an issue of Christian freedom.
ReplyDeleteI don't argue to win, however much it might look like it. I argue to make sure an issue gets worked over well and that those reading can see the issues involved and are equipped to make their decision before God. Show me why I should pull my head in and submit to the word of God on this issue and agree with you and Nathan. I genuinely think the two of you tops - I wouldn't speak the way I did otherwise. I was putting as strongly as I could what I think you're losing in your argument. It was strong because it matters. Show me that I've misunderstood things here.
I'm not sure what you meant by this: I know what you wrote on this. Don't agree.
Which is problem for me. Because I want to agree strongly with you at that point, but apparently I can't and I'm not sure why.
I agree with why you feel strongly about this. I think it's a real tragedy that we aren't taking up every scripture teaching opportunity available. I think schools are a great way to engage with non-Christians. I've all but said that if we had a kid down one end of the spectrum Jennie and I would probably send them to school for the kind of reason you're advocating, even if we thought it was a bad decision in other areas.
What I said was I want the freedom to not to do if I think it's not good for my children, or for one child. And not have people go, "Well, yes, you're free to do that obviously, but you clearly don't care about the great commission." I've said I want the decision to be a tool for me to use in my task of being a father. And I want everyone else to stop telling me what I must do.
1. I don't think public schooling is wrong, and by your own conclusions neither do you. So this part of the discussion seems a bit moot.
ReplyDelete2. Why does the state not have the right to compel parents to ensure their children receive access to an education? Why do we think parents have a right to choose to educate their children as they see fit? What about the rights of the child. Parenting is a responsibility. Not a right. As I'm sure you'd agree. But since we live in sub-optimal conditions where a fair proportion of parents will not live up to their responsibilities I think it's fair to say a government has the responsibility to look out for its citizens.
3. Well, I reject any conclusion you've reached here on the basis of your study. I don't see how any of your examples of experts behaving badly are a reason to distrust experts in general. abusus non tollit usum. I like throwing out Latin phrases. It means, for those who don't speak it, that "misuse does not remove right use". Sure, some people abuse a little bit of learning. Some people abuse a lot of learning. But I think your suspicions in this area are borderline paranoid. Knowing, as I do, that the Queensland Education Minister is an evangelical Christian man, a Presbyterian no less, who goes to my old church, and knowing many Christians who are educators, and understand a bit more about the development of children than I do, I'm willing to cede ground to them in this debate.
Remember the point you've made here about doctors next time you need a health check up.
"In field after field experts want the right to determine, not just the mechanics of how to do things, but the fundamental operating assumptions as though it is a non-moral issue, but just an issue of ‘expert knows best’. I think it is going to be the sword to turn ‘religious freedom’ into an ever shrinking and ultimately meaningless concept."
I, mostly, fail to see how this issue is one of "religious freedom" - unless you can demonstrate to me that enrolling your children into a state school goes against your religious beliefs, or that anybody who does hold such religious beliefs doesn't have the right not to send their children to school.
I think, if you were to consider for a moment, the question of such a child. One whose Abba worshipping parents decide their children will not be educated by the state, but will instead be educated in a curriculum focusing on the lyrics of Abba's 20 most successful songs. Then you might start to appreciate the necessity of some form of government intervention.
With the example of a Christian parent who home schools and isolates their children - what happens if the child grows up resenting the faith? And resenting their upbringing? If we're assuming that our children are unregenerate then how is the right thing to indoctrinate them rather than to present them with the ability to make an informed choice?
The people who benefit from my decision to educate my children are my children. Just as the people who benefit from my decision to support my parents are my parents. Love involves specific people – your family, your neighbour – not ‘humanity’.
So then, how will you love your neighbourhood, and the children and parents therein? How will you love the community that gathers a block away around a public school?
"If home schooling produces maturity and results in normal adults, then isn’t that what we want?"
ReplyDeleteUltimately - but aren't we on about the means as well as the ends? Otherwise you're taking my argument (which you've already disagreed with) and suggesting that the ends justify the means. Provided we turn out normal adults its all ok? Pish.
"If you stop assuming that schooling is just obvious, doesn’t the fact that homeschooling produces maturity faster, and a opens up a comfortableness with adult society faster, act to strongly commend it as a preferred option? "
No. Because I don't necessarily think that behaving like adults is the ideal for children. In my experience it leads to a breakdown in respect for adults (and by extension, authority) because it is often coupled with an inability to understand any difference between adult and child on the child's part.
Hanging out with different kids doesn’t really help make kids tolerant or value diversity.
No, not any more than hanging around cars makes you a mechanic. But it's hard to be a mechanic if you don't.
Pushing kids together to hang out with each other and socialise each other seems to encourage conformism, a focus on fads, a lack of historical perspective, and an inability to resist peer group pressure.
Putting kids with adults does that too - just with a less helpful power dynamic.
Specialised subjects that form the precondition for further study could be taught by specialised things – people could learn everything from advanced maths and science to car mechanics and manual arts by more specialised and intensive sessions with institutions similar to a community college.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you move to Sweden if you love it so much... because that system produces such balanced individuals.
And when you go back in time the results seem even more staggering. The level at which ordinary people used to read – I’ve heard people say that mid-nineteenth century grammar books intended for children in fifth grade were written at a level that we would consider undergraduate. Whereas our newspapers are written (I’ve heard) for a contemporary 12 y.o. reading level.
This one is much more in my area of expertise. Language evolves. People from the mid-nineteenth century would find this sort of conversation on this sort of medium mind boggling. It's a movable feast. Most of todays fifth graders know more about the world than the average post-graduate from a century ago. We digest more information in a day than most people digested in a year then. Language changes to breed efficiency. Most newspapers are pitched at 11 or under, and if they could be any simpler they would... then there's Twitter...
Presidential debates in the nineteenth century went for hours and involved substantial abstract arguments. The public can’t handle that now, and doesn’t consider that decline anything to mourn over.
Some of them have even been able to point me to fairly concrete evidence to back that opinion up.
And yet, I point you to the increasing number of universities offering an increasing number of courses, both single and multidisciplinary, where people enjoy the benefit of centuries of development in thought and are able to read not just the classics, but responses to the classics written all over the world.
In our own field, can you imagine studying theology even two hundred years ago? I can do the research on an essay in five minutes that a diligent student would have taken months to achieve. There are books written on every obscure topic imaginable.
Evidence is pretty relative. Any journalist (or PR person) worth their salt knows that. There are studies that support just about anything. Any view is justifiable.
Your statements here just don't mesh with my experiences or observations, the students you say teachers are describing are no doubt the lowest common denominator, those rank and file students who pad out university classes so that institutions receive more funding for the research of the best and brightest. There are certainly more people receiving tertiary education than ever before, and I have no doubt many of them would not have been accepted in the past.
"Presidential debates in the nineteenth century went for hours and involved substantial abstract arguments. The public can’t handle that now, and doesn’t consider that decline anything to mourn over."
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's the public who can't handle it now. The public, certainly in Australia, seems to be relishing the idea that politics might be about to shift away from style and towards substance. I don't know what "public" you're referring to at this point. But everybody I talk to bemoans the state of modern political discourse, most people (even uneducated people) can't understand how Twitter ever became a tool for political discourse (like my father-in-law, a mechanic/farmer who on the weekend suggested that Twitter was a waste of time, but completely consistent with the way politics happens).
"I think if we didn’t just assume schooling was the way to go, there’s evidence to suggest that it may actually be part of the problem"
And yet, if you look at the cultures who embrace education, and particularly literacy, throughout history, you see oppressed people removing the shackles of tyranny. How did those oppressed people get literacy? Schooling.
"The Great Commission plays no role in my courting of my wife, my loving of her now, my honouring of my parents, my trust in my Lord, my love for my God, or the enjoyment I share with Simone for the High School Musicals."
ReplyDeleteBut surely you didn't marry (or pursue) a wife who would stop you preaching the gospel, and surely your honouring of your parents does not harm your witness to people who observe your relationship with them? Even your passion for High School Musicals must allow you to have common ground with people in a particular (and according to Simone, not broad) demographic?
There is great potential for gospel work in all of the examples you gave, and none of them run contrary to the great commission. Nobody here is arguing that evangelism is the only factor in our decisions, but shouldn't it be a factor? Even if it's "how consistent is this action with my witness?"
"I [don't] open my Bible, and say to myself, “What role should the great commission play in how I am a father to my children”"
I assume the "don't" is meant to be in there, otherwise it runs counter to the paragraphs around it.
And it's sad that you don't want to teach your children the gospel and make them disciples. Which is the only conclusion I draw from you saying the great commission doesn't come into your parenting.
"Trust God to know what he’s doing and where he has not made a link that you think he should have just close your mouth and don’t try and help him out.”
Is this general advice on pastoral ministry? Surely you're not ruling out any systematic approach to theology here? I think so long as the argument is "this approach is valid, and possibly optimal" rather than "this is the only approach" then I want Christians to be thinking about, and making the case for, particular approaches to issues rather than general ones.
My original comment may have been lost with Simone's first post. But basically I said I think this is an area where people in ministry, seeking to connect with a community, should think hard. I don't recall ever saying that public schooling was the only way - just that it is a good way to connect with, and create ministry opportunities with, your suburban community.
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight I would have no problem with my parents having sent me to two public schools - one in Maclean, NSW, and one in Mitchelton, QLD (for anonymous) in order to better connect with the community they were ministering to. None. I could have had a better education elsewhere, I probably would have had more favourable academic outcomes if that had been the case. My motivation would probably have improved. But I wouldn't trade the experience of mixing with a truly diverse group of people, and as I grew older, evangelising them, for the world. I wouldn't trade my friendships with my atheist and agnostic school friends for anything. I think their input makes my views on things from politics to my faith richer.
" I respect the silences of Scripture as well as what it says. I don’t abstract from it one principle (such as ‘gospel’) that I then use as a engine to derive a whole new bunch of laws to put on people’s consciences that God never said."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you're seeing silences where I'm seeing a compelling argument to be involved in evangelism wherever possible in order that some might be won.
I don't recall suggesting anything I've written was legally binding, or even normative - in fact, any time the suggestion that that is my intention has come up I've denied it.
I'm simply suggesting that the opportunity to evangelise (both for you, and God willing, for your child) should be considered when it comes to picking the education pathway for your child.
"But stop shortcutting it for people by just telling them what God wants them to do when we can’t find anything like that in the Bible."
ReplyDeleteI don't see anybody advocating anything here that looks like "telling them what God wants them to do" nor any thing in my argument that doesn't resemble something we can find in the Bible. I'd like some specific examples to the contrary please.
Here was my opening - I think I qualified it enough to show that it was "my opinion"...
"So for me, the school question is pretty cut and dried.
I think the decision should be based primarily on finding a school community to plug into and serve - hoping to improve stuff at school (which based on your interactions with Eagle Junction I reckon probably fits). "
My reading of this conversation was then that you called on me to justify my opinion. I've never said "the Bible says you must send your children to public school." That would be dumb, and untenable. Much more tenable is "the Bible doesn't rule out Public School, and a case could be made that suggests the evangelistic opportunities presented by public schooling make it a preferable option."
In conclusion, because it's midnight and I have 70 Hebrew words to learn before my test tomorrow morning...
ReplyDeleteMark,
I've enjoyed crossing swords on this. It's been fun. I'm glad to find someone who has a similar philosophy about the nature of blogging (and its use) to me. And I don't care what people say about your posts being far too long... they're fine by me.
Simone,
Thanks for hosting... and I love how comprehensively we ignored this:
"Just for fun, leave an 'a', 'b' or 'c' in the comment box and I'll resume regular blogging."
Hi Caroline,
ReplyDeleteguess my question is then, what was Peter doing telling people: "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"? And Jesus himself said, "unless you repent, you too will also perish". Or are we talking about a different definition of repentance?
My take on this matter has been canvassed ad nauseum (which, in case Nathan doesn't know, means 'to the point of nausea' Hee!) in a recent series on forgiveness and repentance on Sola Panel. Particularly posts seven and eight and then some of the comments underneath them and some of the previous ones. So I won't inflict that on Simone's blog here.
The summary is that I stand with Calvin in Book three and Chapter three. The gospel is that God justifies the ungodly by faith alone and apart from works. Repentance is a work - it is something that a sinner does that pleases God. So justification by faith alone means 'and not repentance'. Repentance is a fruit of faith - once God unites me to Christ and gives me his Spirit then I can and do repent. So repentance is 'part' of the gospel only in the sense that it is produced by it, not that it is a condition for it.
And places which seem to make it a condition are more like Jesus telling the rich young ruler to obey the commands and live - they throw us back to faith to take hold of God's solution to our inability to repent. Or they are like us telling someone to go to Church, read their Bible and start praying if they want to become a Christian. Start moving in the direction that the way of life is going in if you want it. But you aren't saved by your church going, bible reading, or praying. And you aren't saved by your repentance either.
As has become clear to me from that series, an awful lot of current Reformed thinking disagrees with Calvin on this and takes a more Catholic/Anabaptist view that faith and repentance are conditions for the gospel. I'm still digesting that.
Dear Cath,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to say thanks for your comment about love, the many and the few. It made think again about what love actually is and built on my thinking that love is specific and that knowledge and love go together (from John's Gospel esp). And was really helpful to question whether we are called on to love the whole world, which I think we assume we are, because we are commanded to love.
Still thinking it through, but made me realise that the priorities are to learn to love the people around us (neighbour) rather than the nameless multitudes. Rather than loving everyone in a kind of flat way, where everyone gets an equal share, which as you say would be dodgy for lots of reasons, its about not refusing to love people who come into that zone who are different/incomprehensible, but to know them better with a view to loving them well over time.
Still thinking. But thanks for your categories: very helpful.
(Off-topic and all, sorry Simone. No doubt we will all bow to your authority as ruler of this blog at some point.)
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDelete1. Why does the state not have the right to compel parents to ensure their children receive access to an education? Why do we think parents have a right to choose to educate their children as they see fit? What about the rights of the child. Parenting is a responsibility. Not a right. As I'm sure you'd agree. But since we live in sub-optimal conditions where a fair proportion of parents will not live up to their responsibilities I think it's fair to say a government has the responsibility to look out for its citizens.
Bleah. I sit within the English speaking post-Reformation tradition where government tyranny is an ongoing threat to freedom, and the rule of law and accountability to the public restrains the hand of government in its ability ‘to look out for its citizens’. “Freedom” is where the government has no right to dictate terms to its citizens. Government has its sphere, family has its. And government is not there to second guess the family any more than family is there to second guess the government. Separation of powers in society, as well as in government. If you want to embrace the Continental tradition where freedom is created by the government’s actions go ahead, France is such a paragon of freedom after all.
Parenting is both a right and a responsibility. Parents have the right to raise their children, because they have the responsibility. Government does not have the responsibility to raise children so it does not have the right to educate children as it sees fit.
2. I gave a list of examples of why experts can’t just be trusted to go away and do things in their sphere free from democratic accountability or moral questioning. That’s hardly evidence that I think elites are all plotting against us, nor is it evidence that I fundamentally distrust them. It was evidence against your blank cheque that elites should be just trusted because they’re the experts (or, you know, they’re great Christians who go to your old church).
It goes back to the same democratic principle – fundamental issues are primarily issues of morality (or the common good) and so should be set through the democratic process. In various ways the complexity of modern society is pulling against that and different spheres want to be set free from democratic accountability. Instead they want (in practice, if not intent) for democracy to be governed by the conclusions of experts. That’s closer to Plato’s The Republic (not actually there, but moving more that way) than the democracy that we ended up with after the Reformation, and that had certain reformation convictions about limited human authority feeding into it.
And seriously, if you can’t see that the government being able to micromanage parents raising their kids by invoking what experts currently think and then just making it law is a potential threat to religious liberty then you’re just not looking around you. You will find it very hard to adopt a child in England now if you don’t agree with homosexuality, and even harder to foster one. That result came about because certain elite sections of society changed their views on the matter, and they have control of those aspects of society.
I’m not saying that’s the whole story of elites. Just it’s there and it’s going in a direction that cuts against how religious liberty was made possible in our society.
3. Because I don't necessarily think that behaving like adults is the ideal for children. In my experience it leads to a breakdown in respect for adults (and by extension, authority) because it is often coupled with an inability to understand any difference between adult and child on the child's part.
ReplyDeleteSo children now are more respectful of adults because of schooling than they were, say two centuries ago? And homeschooled children generally don’t respect adult authority as much as schooled children do? That’s your experience? I think that might not be a universal experience…
You didn’t say that they ‘behaved like adults’ you observed that they were ‘mature beyond their years’. The benefit of the former could be argued. I find it hard to see how maturity is a bad thing.
4. Your statements here just don't mesh with my experiences or observations, the students you say teachers are describing are no doubt the lowest common denominator, those rank and file students who pad out university classes so that institutions receive more funding for the research of the best and brightest.
No. I’ve heard it from Oxford dons here who do pick tend to pick up the ‘best and brightest’ in their intake. They consider the ‘A level’ of secondary school to be a fairly poor indicator of a student’s ability. And performance in tutorials is lower than they remember. ‘Best’ is lower than what they remember it used to be.
In Oz my dad, who taught engineering at the place that was (at the time) the best rated location in the state (possibly the country, can’t remember) and so attracted lots of high quality students, they finally tried to get a handle on their suspicion that the students coming in were less and less able. They went back over twenty years of assessment and got rid of the bell shaped curves and just plotted the results. He told me it came out as an exponential curve downwards – the early stages of the curve (IIRC), but it was a classic exponential curve.
At UQ, in my Arts degree, I tended to pick out the essay option that most required broad integration – “What was the nature of the Enlightenment” not “Why did Law X get up”. I remember talking with a lecturer about one of these questions. He was surprised that I was tackling it and commented that they were on the verge of axing those kind of questions altogether – almost no-one attempted them, and most of those who did made trainwrecks of them. Now, I wouldn’t say that they were necessarily the high-flyer questions. But I think the kinds of people who would make good, say historians, would tend to gravitate to them. What he was observing was that students (even the best) just couldn’t attempt the kind of demanding question they could only a decade or so before and so they were asking easier questions of undergraduates. The ‘top’ was lower than it had been.
I’ll tackle the gospel issue sometime later – hope it’s good study, and it’s been a good conversation.
"So children now are more respectful of adults because of schooling than they were, say two centuries ago? And homeschooled children generally don’t respect adult authority as much as schooled children do? That’s your experience? I think that might not be a universal experience…"
ReplyDeleteI think part of respect is recognising difference in experience and realising that you're a child, and the person you're talking to is an adult. I think that by becoming adults early, in their own minds, some home schooled children in their tweens blur the boundaries of respect.
I think by the time we're all adults this isn't such a problem, but at the time it can be a little off putting.
"You didn’t say that they ‘behaved like adults’ you observed that they were ‘mature beyond their years’."
I said:
"In my experience home schooling produces children who are mature beyond their years and much more comfortable socialising with adults than their peers. "
I meant "than with their peers"...
"In Oz my dad, who taught engineering at the place that was (at the time) the best rated location in the state (possibly the country, can’t remember) and so attracted lots of high quality students, they finally tried to get a handle on their suspicion that the students coming in were less and less able. They went back over twenty years of assessment and got rid of the bell shaped curves and just plotted the results. He told me it came out as an exponential curve downwards – the early stages of the curve (IIRC), but it was a classic exponential curve."
I wonder how much of this is because people become overly specialised too early. I think it's because we've accelerated our learning in order to get out and get the job and learning is now more means than ends. So things on the periphery fall down. Maybe. And as I've been trying to suggest, the yoof of today know a bunch of different stuff that university (and school) curriculums just don't incorporate.
I'm finding the college approach to Greek pretty stupid. When I get out of college I'm never going to parse a verb unaided when preparing a sermon. There's software for that. Shouldn't the way we're educated change to reflect the real world?
I have nothing of benefit to add, but just thought I'd celebrate with a comment, having scrolled all the way down this ridiculously long page.
ReplyDelete"or, you know, they’re great Christians who go to your old church"
ReplyDeleteI guess the point of that reference is that often the experts you impugn are working in the best interest of the people they serve. Not their own interest.
"Government does not have the responsibility to raise children so it does not have the right to educate children as it sees fit."
I disagree. I think the government has a responsibility to ensure national stability, and that part of its job is to produce a generation of educated adults.
I'm surprised at the volume of response on this topic. (Have only skimmed it...)
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT a gospel issue.
Surely as Christians there are times when we should agree to disagree.
Our time could be much better spent with our non-christian family and friends.
Having skimmed it myself, Anonymous, it sounds like all parties are keenly aware that this is not a gospel issue. :) But that doesn't mean it's not worth having an all-out, in-depth, friendly discussion! And that is exactly what this is -- this is not another one of those acrimonious and empty word-wars. :)
ReplyDeleteArthur
After all of this it seems that the discussion has completely ignored the fact that Christian schools are full of non-Christian families (where I live at least). Parents in my area are abandoning the public system because of the poor educational standards. So, Christian families can still share the gospel with the friends they make through school. God will use us for his glory wherever we are.
ReplyDelete"Parents in my area are abandoning the public system because of the poor educational standards."
ReplyDeleteAnd so, are abandoning the poor and needy to a system that we all agree is less than ideal.
This becomes a bit of a feedback loop - the problem amplifies as we pull out all the children of/with promise.
Also...
ReplyDelete"Our time could be much better spent with our non-christian family and friends."
I question the assumption that the outcome of either deciding to go with Mark's view on this, or mine, doesn't have ramifications for our non-Christian family and friends - and since what is at stake is how we go about loving our non-Christian family and friends I suggest you engage with what's being written rather than skimming it and dismissing it with a criticism that completely misses the substance of the debate.
Also, since Mark is in a teaching position at the moment, and I am training to be in a teaching position, and we will have in some small way, input into the way our congregations and denominations think about the issue (as will people reading this), I would say it's a pretty worthwhile discussion to be having with wider ranging impact than this particular page in the vast ocean of the world wide web.
So, it is actually a "gospel issue" so much as it has bearing on the spread of the gospel. It is not a "salvation issue" in that we can disagree with each other because the Bible is not prescriptive on the issue.
Isn't it the case that all people need to hear the gospel?
ReplyDeleteEven those who can afford fee-paying schools?
A different anonymous here. I left a comment on the original post, and also asked Nathan what school he went to.
ReplyDeleteOn the homeschooling thing. Please note that it is not this great freedom from state mandated curricula or educational practice. I think some contextual information might be important here (perhaps important about three days ago - but who dares interrupt the flow of this comment thread???) as it seems that the Queensland 'experience' of homeschoolers is a bit different to what other people are saying. And that is because homeschooling is ILLEGAL in this state. Totally. In order to homeschool, you need to be granted a special dispensation. Once that has been granted, you must follow the state curricula - in the secondary years this involves enrolling in Board Registered Subjects through Distance Ed; you will have a teacher appointed to your family; you will hand in work every week; and your dispensation will be reviewed on a yearly basis. If your children do not show age appropriate progress at the end of each year, your dispensation will be taken off you. If you don't, then, get your children to school, they will come and get you. Really. They will sic the child authorities onto you. It is actually very, very difficult to maintain your dispensation all the way through the 'compulsary' years of your children's schooling in Queensland.
Thus, most of the homeschoolers in Queensland operate illegally. This means that they purchase/obtain their Christian curricula from elsewhere... If they are caught, they are in big trouble.
I think that information is important in light of Simone, and some of the other Queenslander statements, regarding the 'reasons' for homeschooling early on. Due to the state mandated controls on homeschooling here, the people who do homeschool tend to be doing so for social segregation type purposes. They state that quite openly. They really are, for the most part, the stereotypical Amish types. So, please excuse us. I have been racking my brain to think of a homeschooler who has come into my classroom who does not support the steretype, and I cannot think of one.
And while homeschooling is not illegal in any other state, it is still subject to state control. There might be more flexibility regarding curricula choice in other states (I think Tasmania has the most flexible set up), but you will still need to use an approved course of study, and demonstrate age-appropriate progress. What else you do on top of that is your own business, but please do not think that you will get away from a one size fits all, government controlled curriculum. You might get it over with in two hours on a Monday, and then devote the rest of your week to acquiring ten or so Romance Languages, but you will still have the state breathing down your neck. At least in this country.
And as for a friendly discussion, it doesn't always sound like it, does it? At least not to this new Christian. I suppose that's what happens when 'you' start having a poke around the conservative values which encrust the Evangelical, Reformed Idiom. You get attakced. And as for a balanced view, well, there are already enough blogs out there putting the conservative position forward... More of 'Another Something' is needed.
And this anonymous thing is starting to get annoying, so...
Cordelia Fitzgerald (and that is, in no way, a comment on the preferred reading material of homeschoolers!)
Nathan & Mark,
ReplyDeletethanks for the replies.
Nathan, I wasn't thinking that repentance was the gospel, more that it seems inextricably linked to it, or why did Peter answer the people like this? And I didn't think that Mark was saying that the gospel was repentance, either, just that the gospel demanded repentance, so I was wondering if you were either missing his point or possibly avoiding it, because by saying “but that's not actually the gospel” you seemed to be, in a sense, softpedalling the demand for repentance.
As far as the original question goes, I don't think a or b are sufficient, that is, the basis of our decisions should not be either the good of our child or of others, but we should be seeking in all things to glorify God, and how we do this is likely to look different for each of us.
Sorry, Simone, for taking this off topic, I don't have anything more to say on this, I would have liked to have said something about Christian schools, but the discussion's got a bit beyond me now.
I hope you don't mind my dropping by to say hi. :)
ReplyDeleteI live in Missouri, and here, children can be locked in closets or paddled for misbehaviour at school. The social services people are unable to stop the practice in our district as it is LEGAL, and parents have NO recourse if their child is victim of these practices. And mine was.
I'm not saying that all classrooms are horrid. SO MUCH of what makes a "good" or "bad" environment depends on the teacher. But no teacher should have this power over a child.
Now I lobby for more just NATIONAL laws that will protect all children who attend school without fear of repercussions. Is that the greatest good for the most children? I don't know, but it seems the most *just* thing.
"Duty is ours; results are God's." - John Quincy Adams :)
Jennie, Hello! Thanks for expanding on the love stuff...unless we sort out what responsibilities we have to different sets of people, our evangelism and love remain a bit sentimental and hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteNathan, forgive me for not responding to every response you've made to my comments...I'm trying to squeeze this into the kids rest time..and it will be a bit tedious for all. plenty I'd love to say though.
only one thing...
It is clear in this thread that no one is technically saying that Scripture mandates public schooling...but didn't this discussion really start with a post suggesting reasons why parents choose home schooling, Christian schooling, elite private schools and that those reasons were all likely to be idolatrous, or at least incompatible with the great Commission? We can't pretend not to be calling it sin
on some level. But perhaps my impression of the original post was wrong.
"you seemed to be, in a sense, softpedalling the demand for repentance. "
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't really my intention. Promise. I think repentance is an ongoing thing though, that involves living life under the lordship of Jesus and relying on his grace, through faith, because we're totally depraved sinners being transformed by the spirit.
"I would have liked to have said something about Christian schools, but the discussion's got a bit beyond me now. "
Me too, it actually seems we're heading that way in the conversation now though. If it continues for much longer... though I'm not sure how sustainable it is anymore...
"Isn't it the case that all people need to hear the gospel?
Even those who can afford fee-paying schools? "
Yes, but given we're talking about the choice between schooling your children at home under your Christian tutelage, in a school that includes the gospel as part of the curriculum and only employs Christian teachers, or state run schools the "gospel instruction" needs are hopefully being met in the first two categories.
I think we, the church, desert state schooling at our peril. Someone in a comment on a post on my blog yesterday described the decision to send your kids into the public system (albeit in the US) as analogous to sending your kids into a crack den.
Cordelia,
Your comment is perfect. It seems sending your children to school might actually be a case of submitting to the authorities...
"And as for a friendly discussion, it doesn't always sound like it, does it? At least not to this new Christian."
Sorry if anything I've said in this discussion has been unduly aggressive - I can assure you that most of it is written with a (sometimes wry) smile, and I hold Mark in the highest regard.
"And as for a balanced view, well, there are already enough blogs out there putting the conservative position forward... More of 'Another Something' is needed."
Try St. Eutychus.
Hi Cordelia (love the name!)
ReplyDeleteI have been racking my brain trying to work out who you are. Have we met?
I'm with you. Thanks.
s
Hi Simone & Cordelia.
ReplyDeleteI have been part of a homeschooling network in NSW and am now currently a part of a large homeschooling network in Queensland (while also being a public school mother). Much of the discussion at homeschool meets are around authority requirements, the different programs people are using with their families, and the various reasons motivating decisions to educate children at home. As far as I know, none of us are 'operating illegally' nor would any one say they have the state authorities 'breathing down their necks'.
The diversity I find amongst these people is refreshing. These people are not all Christians, in fact some of them are of other faiths. Each one of them is unique in their reasons and approach, no two are the same. They are thinkers, and people who are brave enough to be counter-cultural. And I have had some wonderful opportunities to share the gospel with people I have met there.
I'm wondering if your view of aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number of people is too much of a generalised approach? Where do the homeschoolers I know and appreciate fit into that kind of view? How would you approach them if a stack of them started coming to your church?
Cheers Annita
Hi Simone
ReplyDeleteBlogger keeps eating my comment so I've posted it on my blog instead. It's a version of your Option C which is a little less binary than much of the discussion here. Might help or might not.
http://paintingfakes.blogspot.com/2010/08/back-to-school.html
Heya Nathan,
ReplyDeleteAnd it's sad that you don't want to teach your children the gospel and make them disciples. Which is the only conclusion I draw from you saying the great commission doesn't come into your parenting.
Oh, I just can’t resist this. As Simone (and especially Andrew) will tell you, I’m a very evil man. So:
Irony On Yes Nathan, you’re quite right the only reasonable way to read what I wrote the context of everything I’ve said is that I don’t want to teach the gospel to my children and make them disciples. (Andrew, if you’re reading this, please don’t let Nathan preach on Mt 5:29-30 - you’ll have amputees everywhere!)Irony Off
But it gets better!
"I [don't] open my Bible, and say to myself, “What role should the great commission play in how I am a father to my children”"
I assume the "don't" is meant to be in there, otherwise it runs counter to the paragraphs around it.
Terribly Fake Southern Accent OnWell, ya see pardner, what ya got thar is something that you youngins with your fancy iPhonies (little cowboy joke there pardnar) and highly evolved language for passing information quickly mighn’t be familiar with. It’s one of those prim-uh-tive language thangs us oldies used to do ‘cause we didn’t know any better.
I would be leading with my chin a bit if I said, “I don’t read the Bible” before I go accusing someone of “making a law that isn’t in the Bible.
What I did was sneakily put the conclusion first in a rhetorically overstated way to make a point. I then went (and this is the clever bit) back in time to show you how I got to that conclusion. I opened my Bible and found that it doesn't anywhere link parenting and the great commission very closely at all. As a consequence I asked some hard questions of you guys as to why you were adding to the Word of God.
Okay, I’ll admit it was an unnecessarily complex bit of written language, and no doubt stopped the quick transfer of information by encouraging some reflection on the relationship that exists between different bits of information, but, well, I’m primitive that way.
I’m going to have to go and do some Hail Mary’s now to work that off. :)
Simone! If you had been homeschooled, you would know if we had met or not (followed by an evil chuckle).
ReplyDeleteNathan, I already read your blog, and I like it. And there is no need to apologise. I wasn't referring to anybody specifically, but, perhaps, to some of the heat generated in the original thread.
Anitta, I am very glad that you are operating within the mandate of state education law, and that your experience of homeschooling? public schooling? has been positive. I can assure you, though, that many do operate outside of requirements. My point was that the requirements for homeschooling in Qld are particular to its status as a special dispensation. In view of the original post and comment thread, it seemed important to point out that Queenslanders talking about homeschooling are talking from a specific frame of reference, and this frame of reference might differ to other states. I think in the original comment thread, there was talk of 'us' stereotyping homeschoolers as a. motivated by the desire to minimise contact with non Christian peers, and b.as being a little bit weird. In my experience, this has been the case, especially regarding a. - the weirdness doesn't bother me. My experience is based on teaching homeschoolers from a particular Christian community who come into my Year 9 English class. And this experience is, in turn, informed by the checks and balances imposed (sorry, is that almost as bad as 'breathing down your neck'?) by state education law, which means that the homeschoolers that I have come across are not motivated by a desire for a radically different curriculum, but, rather, by a desire for their children to be socially segregated.
I was also wanting to point out that homeschooling is not necessarily freedom from the educational norms and practices of the day. You are still subject to the laws of the state. You still, to some extent, and this varies from state to state, need to imbibe the one size fits all curriculum in terms of both materials and assessment. So, I am really not sure how homeschooling can, then, be countercultural??
The rest of the questions aren't for me, are they?
Best and good luck with your adventures in education!
C. F.
Hence my rhetorical overstatement that the great commission has ‘nothing’ to do with my parenting. Once I put that on the table you qualified and nuanced your position everywhere to get me to move off such an extreme position – surely you want you parenting to be ‘in line with’ the great commission? To which the answer is obviously yes.
ReplyDeleteBut you (and to some degree Simone) were going ‘in light of the great commission then public schooling is the most natural option’. And I am always, just absolutely always, going to go nuts over that kind of argument. I think it is the single biggest way Evangelicals smuggle legalism back into the freedom that Christ set us free for. If God has things to say about parenting (and he does!) and he doesn’t ever make an argument that looks anything like that, then we need to take heed of that. Commend it as an option that captures something really important. I’d happily back that to the hilt. But don’t collapse it and the great commission into each other quick so totally.
Circumcise Timothy because that seems best for the gospel. But if you go saying that in light of the gospel, everyone sort-of, kind-a, not really and I’m offended that you think I’d suggest that, but actually sorta after all, should probably be circumcised for the sake of the gospel then we are so in Galatians territory.
Okay, it's official. Simone's blog hates me. Let's try again, this comes before the one above:
ReplyDeleteAs for your and Simone’s protests of being champions of Christian freedom, I won’t go back through the thread and show all the various wordings you’ve done that suggest otherwise. I think Cathy are thinking on the same lines here. I think where you and Simone stand on this can be flushed out with some kind of simple diagnostic question such as:
Does it particularly matter before God whether Christians send their kids to state or Christian or private schools or homeschool them?
You both think that homeschooling is a pretty dodgy option for a Christian to take. You think most Christians should be sending their kids to the local state school. And it’s not ‘should’ in the ‘Reformed Presbetyrianism is a bit better than Reformed Baptist as a way of doing Church’. It’s not ‘in the Bible’, but you think it is the most natural decision in light of what the Bible says. You’re not just commending it as a good decision that can be justified in light of the Bible, it’s just a bit more than that. So it’s not an issue of Christian freedom for you guys – it’s not a ‘you shall not murder’ requirement, but it’s not adiaphora either.
As for the example from my dad, I think the issue here has to do with language and data. If you are immersed in lots of information, you find it hard to sit with some. And being a good engineer/scientist/humanities/theologian person involves not just information but becoming a certain kind of person - developing a certain stance, patterns of thinking and the like. The sheer weight of information at the moment makes that hard.
ReplyDeleteIt's why I can't agree with your assessment about how much better theological education is now. Michael Jensen commented to me as he was finishing up his DPhil here – “I’m going to be getting the students to read less stuff, and pick at the best things for them and get them to really sit with them.” Mastering a discipline isn’t fundamentally about getting lots of knowledge. It’s about learning a way of thinking, a way of acting, that comes through learning the knowledge of the discipline but is much, much more than that. A lot of American students come to Oxford out of a system like what you’re describing and they are unequipped for what is expected of them – original thought that has been shaped by sustained reflection on the best examples of the discipline, not simply an ability to gather everything said on the topic.
And the other side is language. Simple language moves data faster I agree. But complex language is needed for complex thought. That’s why academic language is hard work and fairly complicated – it’s a tool for complex thinking. The simplification of language works for where a lot of where people are at, but it the cost turns up when they have to face advanced education – they don’t really have the tools to do that intellectual work. Reflection, not just knowledge acquisition.
And that’s why I agree with your college about Greek and not you. The Reformers wanted the Bible in the vernacular and the teachers of the Bible to be fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Show them modern language software and they’d still want that. A person who can’t read the text, but needs a computer to parse every other word, can’t read the text. As someone who has just gone through the agony of getting by with language software and then had Oxford require me to sight translate, not koine greek, but patristic greek (which added a year to our stay here) I can testify that it is night and day the effect it has on your engagement with the text. You might disagree with the Reformers at this point, but the issue is not about technology, it’s about learning to think and function in the language.
ReplyDeleteHi Cordelia,
ReplyDeleteAnd as for a friendly discussion, it doesn't always sound like it, does it? At least not to this new Christian. I suppose that's what happens when 'you' start having a poke around the conservative values which encrust the Evangelical, Reformed Idiom. You get attakced.
This conversation has been a bit intense because it’s primarily Nathan and I. I’ll leave it at that :) . If Simone had talked more, or more women had driven the conversation more, or guys who weren’t arguing for something but more just wondering aloud, it would have ‘felt’ different. I argue differently with women because they don’t enjoy the argy-bargey that guys who are trying to be the chief buck in the paddock find fun (that kind of includes me, but I actually am the chief buck (Heh) so the ‘trying’ bit doesn’t really relate to me). It’s also a bit more intense because the Richardsons and the Baddeleys have been friends for (cough cough, us Gen Xers are getting old fast) years and Nathan is one of Simone’s minions (hee!) – so the relationship is already in place and we don’t have to try and build a safe place for each other in the thread – it’s already there and we can take a few more relational risks.
The homeschooling legality insight was very interesting – thanks for that, I think it’s one of the most useful bits of the thread. I’m not really fussed about the state having some kind of oversight about what’s happening educationally. Requiring a curriculum is fine with me, as my primary thought is that homeschooling could possibly do more than the curriculum, and the state can’t really stop that (nor should it want to) if the curriculum really has been properly covered.
Homeschooling being illegal is a different thing. There’s no way I could get anyone to agree with this, I suspect. ‘Conservatives’ almost never stick together and fight for anything that they themselves don’t personally believe in and want. But I think Christiains in Qld who don’t homeschool should give serious consideration to getting that changed. You don’t have to use a right, or even want many others to use it, to not want that right on the books.
There was a case recently in the States where a German couple successfully got ‘political refugee’ from a judge (over the strenuous opposition from the Federal Govt) because homeschooling is illegal in Germany. The judge’s observation was along the lines of ‘it was hard to think of something more antithetical to American values of freedom’ then for government to so heavy handedly micromanage parenting and that it was simply obvious that it was ground for asylum. (A friend of mine from the Continent explained to me when I queried the case that countries like Germany see children as fundamentally citizens and parents have no inherent right to raise them, whereas English countries see the family as the more basic social unit and the state exists to help families. Hence the general difference in the approach to how much the state should intervene to protect kids from their parents.)
I think most Aussies, if we thought about it, and despite Nathan’s championing of an all-benevolent State, would basically concur with that judge. Our view of freedom is much the same as the American one, and not the German, at this point I think. As is our view of the relationship of the family and the state. We think that government should be creating a climate that encourages families and makes what they do easier. They should be keeping out of the details of family life as much as they possibly can and only get involved with the utmost reluctance. So the right to homeschool, even if we never use it, better reflects our convictions about human life.
More pragmatically, it helps to have escape routes in the future. You might never have to use them, but it’s always nice to have a fire door. The Greens and the Labour left want homosexual marriage, and want churches to have to not ‘discriminate’ against practicing homosexuals. Aussies are pretty conservative, so there’s not a lot of support for it. But I’m not sure there’s much opposition either if someone decided to push it.
ReplyDeleteMy limited reading about what happened in Massachusetts when they intro’d homosexual marriage (by judicial decision) was that public schools immediately started introducing ‘gay pride’ days and the like to teach children that homosexuality was normal. When parents appealed to the courts that they wanted to be able to take their kids out of such things, the courts ruled that the schools had an obligation to normalise homosexuality for kids now marriage was legal for it.
At the risk of Nathan accusing me of some kind of X-Files paranoia once again, those sort of moves are less likely if the State knows that if it pushes too far ahead of public opinion people have the option of stepping back altogether from its schools. Some rights help everyone, even those who don’t want them exercised much. We don’t know what will develop over the next twenty years in Oz. So some options for worst and next-to-worst case scenarios would be good to have in advance.
Thanks for the good wishes Cornelia. I operate within the state education law, because I want to obey God's word (Rom 13:1) All of God's word, in fact - including Matt 28:18-20.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what I thought this blog post was originally about.
There seemed to be a charged leveled at home schoolers that they couldn't fulfill the great commission quite as well as public schoolers. I'm not sure how naughty Qlders who operate outside the law, or the peculiar 'special dispensation' for Qld homeschoolers fits with the discussion at hand? Nor how some who might think they are achieving counter-cultural freedom, actually (in your opinion) aren't?
OK. I might have been a little bit loose in my previous posts. What I wanted to show is this: there are those of us out there, who have chosen the homeschooling option, because we think it is a better option 1.spiritually and 2. educationally for our children. Using homeschooling as the springboard, we have devised a plan by which we as a family can be a blessing to the wider community by obeying Jesus' great commission, and raise children who love and honour Jesus for themselves. We humbly and prayerfully rely on the Spirits work for this.
You have fessed up to stereotyping homeschoolers as being motivated by a desire to 'minimise contact with non Christian peers', and 'to being a little bit weird'. It seems that you are painting all homeschoolers with the one brush, derived from very slim experience - that being one or two individuals from 'a particular Christian community'. Is that fair?
I'm a red head, but you'd sure get me wrong if you assumed I was just like Julia Gillard, because she was the only other red head you knew!!
Cheers ;)
Now we've gone a fair way off topic.
ReplyDeleteAnd us young'uns don't always feel the need to demonstrate when we're being ironic. Nor do we need to insert stage directions. Words speak for themselves.
But let me point out, just briefly, what I was getting at with the comment that you reacted to so dramatically. Or perhaps, for fear of illegitmate totality transfer, theatrically.
"And it's sad that you don't want to teach your children the gospel and make them disciples. Which is the only conclusion I draw from you saying the great commission doesn't come into your parenting."
You realise I'm pretty certain you do want to teach your kids the gospel right... Here's how I actually interpreted your statement...
Here's what you said:
"I open my Bible, and say to myself, “What role should the great commission play in how I am a father to my children” I turn to the OT law that discusses a parent’s role. Hmmmn nothing there. I turn to the wisdom literature. Nothing there either. I turn to Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and his instructions to fathers. What do you know, nothing again."
I assumed the "don't" was missing not because I didn't think you opened scripture - but because I thought you didn't approach scripture asking "what does the great commission say to me about parenting"... I thought the "nothing there... nothing there either" implied that you found nothing in the great commission either.
Which I thought was legitimate in the light of:
"My fathering of my children is an end in itself. It is not a means to some other end. I don’t father my children to further the great commission."
So basically, I assumed you'd made a typo. Not sure that deserved the treatment it received... I wasn't being cute. And I think you'll see that I was actually trying to read it in the light of the surrounding paragraphs.
LOL! Well, I figured it was about that point in the thread for some hamming-up. Whether the joke ended up on me or you or both of us doesn't really worry me. Laughter is a bit of an end in itself for me too :)
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to concede the point - I'm the performing clown this time around.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThe gay marriage thing is just far too off topic for here - but I wrote a little bit about my position here, and a little here.
Oh no. One of my comments has disappeared. Let me rehash.
ReplyDelete"If God has things to say about parenting (and he does!) and he doesn’t ever make an argument that looks anything like that, then we need to take heed of that."
I would argue that there are plenty of passages that suggest the work of the kingdom, of which evangelism is a subset, should be part of our approach to life - of which parenting, and even decisions about education, are a part.
I'm not being legalistic, I think there's plenty of freedom here, but I also think there's an optimal option in the light of this framework.
I can't see how pulling children out of the only educational sphere available for the poor (for example, I don't think many single mums have the freedom to homeschool) and putting them in cloistered environments is how we should love widows and orphans (James 1) or it may even be showing favouritism to the rich (James 2)
"Does it particularly matter before God whether Christians send their kids to state or Christian or private schools or homeschool them?"
No. Not particularly. But is one course wiser? I'm not sure that any of the reasons outside of "educational benefits" are legitimate for homeschooling - and in practice most teachers will tell you that children coming back into the schooling fold after a period of homeschooling have not enjoyed the benefits you suggest they might...
"You both think that homeschooling is a pretty dodgy option for a Christian to take."
I think it can be. Especially if it's a decision taken in order to "shelter" your children from scary heathens. Or from scary heathen ideas. As though sending your kids to a state school abdicates your parental responsibilty for their education. I'm sure some people might be philosophically predisposed to homeschooling for different reasons.
You think most Christians should be sending their kids to the local state school. And it’s not ‘should’ in the ‘Reformed Presbetyrianism is a bit better than Reformed Baptist as a way of doing Church’.
I think that's pretty much what I am suggesting it is actually, I am convinced one is better than the other, so I will speak my mind. Even if just to correct those who suggest you can't be a responsible parent and send your kids to a state school.
"It’s not ‘in the Bible’, but you think it is the most natural decision in light of what the Bible says. You’re not just commending it as a good decision that can be justified in light of the Bible, it’s just a bit more than that."
Yeah, I'm saying because it's a good decision we should take it. I make no apology for suggesting Christians should make the best decisions available.
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the links. We aren't going to see eye to eye there either. The best two articles I've seen on the issue, both by people quite sympathetic to the homosexual cause overall are:
http://fireflydove.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1
I agree with those who argue that marriage has always been understood as a way of creating a stable environment for children that are likely to be produced by the activity of heterosexual sex.
Calling a partnership between two people of the same gender fundamentally changes what marriage is - in much the same way that introducing no fault divorced fundamentally changed the nature of the family in a small but very signicant way. People pushing for the change know that - they want marriage and sex disconnected from reproduction.
Arguing for the individual 'hard case' - what about the person who ends up with two parents the same gender, aren't they better off with two people who love them then none at all? Is the kind of thinking that the first of the articles above addresses. By setting up a law that normalises homosexual families with children you then open up future children to be adopted by homosexual partnerships, and it really cuts against the grain to allow adoption agencies that won't adopt to homosexual couples or to allow people to adopt who aren't in favour of homosexuality.
I don't know of anywhere yet that has successfully done what you think should happen - say homosexuality is fine legally, and then allow religious groups to disciminate in their social activities.
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI think you and I have different views about what ‘freedom’ means in the phrase ‘Christian freedom’.
Let’s recap and I’ll try and show my problem with what you’re saying. I ask, does it matter to God what we choose when schooling and you say:
No. Not particularly.
That I recognise as a clear statement of Christian freedom. Keep the Sabbath, don’t, keep special days, treat every day as special it doesn’t matter and I (the Apostle Paul) won’t then say, ‘but you should do one or the other’.
But what do we have around this clear statement that it does not matter to God what I choose?
+One option is the wisest and we should always choose the wisest option.
+Only sending children to public schools is loving the widow and orphan and not showing favouritism to the rich
+There is no legitimate reason to homeschool except for educational benefits (and they don’t exist by the way)
And so we finish with:
Yeah, I'm saying because it's a good decision we should take it. I make no apology for suggesting Christians should make the best decisions available.
So, let me rephrase the question:
Does it matter to God whether we make the best decisions available?
Surely your answer is ‘yes’. There’s no ‘should’ that does not come from God, is there? “It does not matter to God but we should do it anyway” kind of idea, surely? The only 'shoulds' are ones that matter to God.
Which means that, as state schooling is the best decision available, God actually wants Christians to be sending their kids to state schools.
Which means we're not free on this issue after all.
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDeleteOkies, the homosexual marriage issue is fairly important in its own right, so I've commented on the post you linked above. It'll be interesting to see where that goes.
Sorry, I meant 1 Corinthians 7:10-12.
ReplyDeleteUmm. So. A comment disappeared. Lets try again.
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter to God whether we make the best decisions available?
My answer is yes.
"There’s no ‘should’ that does not come from God, is there?"
I think Paul might disagree in 1 Corinthians 7 (v10-12).
"The only 'shoulds' are ones that matter to God."
Indeed, and I think you're kind of missing my point here. I challenge you to read through my words and find a time that I say "you must send your kids to state schools"...
My argument is this:
1. You should make decisions with evangelism as a factor. I think the Bible leads to this framework. I suspect you do to.
2. When I approach this decision using that framework I think that public schooling is the best option. That is my personal opinion, based on my experience and other personal presuppositions.
3. I, can not, in a clear conscience, hold to step one, and step two, without then sending my children to the local school.
My only "should" is that we should make the decision about schooling with more than just a concern to screen unhelpful ideas from our children. We should assume that we are the primary educators, and influencers, of our children, then the church, then their peers, then the school.
ReplyDeleteThe rest is a voicing of my opinion as to how this plays out in the real word. If you think my words carry the authority of scripture then I understand your concerns. But I don't think that. I think I am just voicing what I think is the best option following the application of theology and wisdom.
Cordelia Being Quite Blunt Today Fitzgerald
ReplyDeleteAnnita,
Not quite. I have not indicated that ‘we’ are stereotyping homeschoolers. I was politely trying to establish that homeschoolers are stereotypes. And, of course, this is not based on 1 -2 students. That is ridiculous. I am speaking from years of teaching experience, and contact with homeschoolers across different contexts. I don’t think it is ‘stereotyping’ to state that the majority of homeschoolers are motivated by a desire to segregate their children, in some way, from the influence/s of the world. This is true. You have also indicated that this is true of your decision to homeschool in your first post. It is also not ‘stereotyping’ to state that homeschoolers have strange social skills. This is also true. Most teachers who deal with homeschoolers agree with this. And others.
My comments regarding the more rigorous mandates which pertain in Queensland were, in some small way, a support of what Simone was questioning in her original post. That is, if you segregate your children, how, then, are they in the world, or a witness to it? It then became clear that several interstate ‘commenters’ were indicating that some of the homeschoolers, who had crossed their paths, were not as we were positioning them to be. That led me to provide the contextual information regarding homeschooling in Queensland because I think our sociocultural context, including the laws and norms of the state, shape us to some extent. So, thus, if the homeschooling practices are more flexible in other states, it makes sense that there would be more diversity amongst homeschoolers. The Queensland norms for homeschooling are more limiting and so, thus, you have less diversity here. I was highlighting our experiences of homeschoolers in order to show why, perhaps, we had a questioning of homeschooling as an educational alternative in the original post.
Those comments regarding the state of homeschooling in Queensland were also in response to some comments above, which were tentatively positing the possibilities of homeschooling as a kind of anarchic, counter-cultural freedom. I wanted to point out that, as things stand in most states, this is not possible - unfortunately.
My comments are specific, really, to homeschooling and education. I have not commented on the Great Commission – for an explication of the positions on this see above!!! However, I wholeheartedly endorse Simone’s original premise which was something along the lines of ‘our choices for our children often reflect our own idols and insatiable desire for status.’ It is something to be considered carefully. For example, if you send your children to a private school, isn’t it important to be aware of what you are buying into, participating in? Yes, of course, non Christians in Private Schools need the gospel, and, oops, look at that, your child has also acquired a fair dollop of social capital and an entrée into the best universities as well?!??!
Hi Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI'll see if I can make this reasonably short. I agree that you're offering your opinion as to the implications of wisdom and theology. You're not saying it has the voice of God behind it directly.
But you're saying that there is a best decision. You're saying that that best decision captures important principles such as James 1 and 2, and the great commission. One decision, that can be seen by a reasonable person who looks carefully at the issues, captures these principles in a way that none other can.
It is so clearly one, that you can't make any other decision with a clear decision. And you're not saying that as a 'for me personally'. You've said that you make no apologies for pressing other Christians to make the best decision available. So it should the same for them as well unless their circumstances are quite unusual.
In such a situation, I don't think we're 'free'. Unless you can explain what you mean by 'free' and it means something like - you won't go to Hell, and there shouldn't be church discipline consequences.
Where there is a best decision, and that best decision is connected to ethics and theology, such that conscience is bound, then we are not in the realm of 'Christian freedom' at least as I think it has been traditionally understood.
You think this is an issue where there is a right answer (the best one which we should always take) and a bunch of wrong answers (ones that aren't best which we should not take).
I think my protests about Christian freedom are therefore appropriate because I don't agree that there is a "best" decision. If you're right and there's a best decision then there's no freedom to see here folks, move along.
"In such a situation, I don't think we're 'free'. Unless you can explain what you mean by 'free' and it means something like - you won't go to Hell, and there shouldn't be church discipline consequences."
ReplyDeleteYou're free to come to an entirely different decision to me, using an entirely different approach. You're free to disagree with me. You're free to tell me I'm wrong. You're free to use a different theological framework and reach the same decision. You're free to use the same theological framework and reach a different decision.
There is plenty of space for freedom. I do, however, think there is a best decision in all decisions. And I think part of serving one another is offering our thoughts as to that best decision in love, and in a non-binding manner.
I think we're all free to make wrong decisions in our attempt to be obedient to God. I think that's what grace is for. I think we should be aiming to extend the same grace that God does for wrong decisions to other people who make wrong decisions.
Mark: In the whole group of educational decisions, there is not always in every situation the same best decision.
ReplyDeleteNathan: Yes there is.
or
Mark: The best decision in one case is not necessarily the same as the best decision in another.
Nathan: Yes it is.
Looks like the difference between ethics by case and ethics by category.
(I was taught how to summarise at school...;-)
Now look what you've gone and done, Anthony!
ReplyDeleteYou reduced a perfectly good outsized thread to about eight lines of text.
Pfft! Good thing you weren't speaking up earlier, otherwise we'd have never gotten over the 100 comment mark.
Somewhat more seriously,
ReplyDeleteNathan,
Thanks for making that clearer. I don't think that's what is usually meant by 'Christian freedom' or its equivalents. What you're articulating there is pretty darn fundamental for an evangelical approach to the ministry of the Word, but it's not 'Christian freedom'.
I think 'Christian freedom' is predicated on the idea that, in certain circumstances, there is no best decision - that within a circle bounded by certain principles (that vary from issue to issue) any decision is as legitimate as any other. Drink, don't drink. Keep the sabbath, don't. Eat meat, don't eat it. Like High School Musical best, prefer High School Musical 2 more (that one was for you Simone). There's no 'best' there. And so, no issue of a clear conscience either.
I'd encourage you to go and have a chat with Andrew Bain at your college about something (or somethings) you can read about the issue. I think your ministry will be enhanced if you have a bit more of that kind of concept in play. That's not 'pulling rank' or anything, just an encouragement. And you're free not to take it...
Mark: I think your HSM example was flawed. HSM was a better moview than HSM2. But a couple of the songs in HSM2 made up a little for the woeful story. And that is gospel. Ask anyone.
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeleteAnd HSM3? Dare I ask?
Okay, blogger seems to be having trouble with the size of this post. I'm going to close it here. Thanks for everyone's comments I have read them all (well, maybe not all of Mark and Nathan's!), even if I haven't had time to respond. If I was braver, I'd promise to write another post sometime in the future.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good discussion. s.