On Strategy
(but God forbid that we forget the goals)

We are clearly now talking about strategy. Now, I am fine with this, but I think it is important when talking about strategy to remember what the goals are!

What are the goals?

The goals are to establish a "Christian culture," to help students gain knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, to see the lost come to the saving knowledge of Christ, to see the believers continually grow in their walk with God, to give God the praise, glory, and honor that is due His name.

In this debate, I've been trying to explore all that education could be. I'm not being a reactionist for the sake of being a reactionist (although it is a given that I do love debate for the sake of debate). I am jealous for God's name to be exalted. I want to see lives transformed by the power of the grace of God. I have been captivated - in a romantic way - by the ideas of a classical and Christian education. I want to see students rejoice in the glory of God and to gain knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Above all, I want the message of the cross to be preached and the righteousness of God to be revealed. The whole point of education should be to see these ideas brought to fruition in the lives of students, families, and society.

I would hope that on all these things, you and I are in agreement. If not, then before we really continue on a debate of strategy, we must go back to the debate of what the goals are and what they should be.

Now, on strategy.

You said, "I strongly feel that the model that Christ has set forth is one which requires us as Christians to meet the sinful world on its terms."

Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age." -Matthew 28:18-20

Deuteronomy 6 tells us specifically that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. It goes on to say how: by teaching the children the commands of God and to impress them upon their hearts - to talk about them pretty much all the time. Proverbs says, "Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it."

Education then is the job of parents - not the government.

Having said that, God does work all things out for his glory. Given the circumstances, what your principle did in your high school was no doubt used by God to accomplish His purposes. I do not condemn those actions for a moment. But I also think there is a better approach.

It is a fact that most Christians in our society do not really have a Biblical Worldview. This is true of Christians of all ages, races, social classes, etc. We have a nation of idolatry and confusion.

And I say we need a tactical retreat. See my comments in meditationsofdan.blogspot.com about the involvement our Sunday School group has with the Boys and Girls Club. The way to engage this culture is not for parents who have a halfway Biblical worldview to send their kids (who might have a quarterway Biblical Worldview) to a public school where they will be indoctrinated by the gospel of tolerance and openmindedness. No! That is like sending a child into Harlem to minister to the drug addicts and gangsters.

Rather, we should put Deuteronomy 6 into practice. Then adults should engage schools boards, parents, Congressmen, neighbors, as well as lost young people the way Jesus did. Children can join their parents in evangelizing their neighbors. But as it is, those who support the "salt and light" argument usually are doing next to nothing to seriously engage culture. They live their lives in their homes detached from the reality of the spiritual warzone that is public schools with a halfway Biblical worldview (probably not even appreciating the promise that God made to Abraham) and they send their worldly kids to worldly public schools to be salt and light. These kids, who are really insecure in many cases, are then intimidated from students and faculty alike to not have a Biblical worldview at all. The teachers' rhetoric is filled with the complicated lies of spiritual neutrality; they learn that they evolved from some primordial goo; and then they are taught that it is arrogant to see your faith as the only truth.

You want kids to evangelize and be salt and light? Fine. But I say they should do that with their families. Family evangelism is what I advocate.

In the meantime, we have got to fight for the salvation and discipleship of young people.

What would Isaiah say?

Being There

Dan,

I think I phrased my point of contention poorly in my previous post. I'm not opposed to preaching with Bible in-hand categorically; this is not a question of there being a proper and improper geographical location for preaching (at least in general). This is not a question of God's sovereignty over school buildings vs. church buildings.

Why do I disagree with preaching in the classroom of public schools? That is easily (and not easily) answered. Public school teachers should not preach because it is "illegal" and insisting on an allowance for preaching in the classroom by every public school teacher would effectively remove them said schools. Now I know that you feel that preaching at all times is an act of obedience, Dan, but please, try to hear me out on this.

I strongly feel that the model that Christ has set forth is one which requires us as Christians to meet the sinful world on its terms. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Christ did not wait for us to get our act together in any way before initiating towards us to bring us into right relationship with him. This is one tremendous example of grace that is not easily ignored. For Christ, it was more important to him that we have the opportunity to know him fully than the cost he would pay to come to Earth to die for us. He came to Earth, placed himself in subjugation to the laws of man, and went about his work, preaching the gospel. The only laws he broke (of which I'm aware) were those of the religious order and I think it's fair to say that, in one sense, his whole purpose on Earth was to break those religious laws and in doing so, point a new and better way to God. In short, Christ came to Earth, limiting himself, so that the message could be clearly and plainly communicated.

You and I both know that preaching in the public school classrooms will, except in very rare situations, remove Christian teachers from the public education system. It is hard for me to see how having such a large public institution void of a Christian influence as a good thing. Again, I know you see this as a matter of obedience, but I see this as a matter of saving the lost where they are. You tend to see things as black and white so this may be a little bit hard for you to see as I do, but I can honestly say that I know and have seen many, many ways for Christian educators to exert a positive influence on those around them and bring them closer to a relationship with God.

Case in point: my high school principle was a Catholic. I don't know much about his faith personally but based on what I saw in his actions, I think I'll get to see him again in heaven. Mr. Harrington did many things that demonstrated the love of God in practical ways but let me name a few. It was very common to see him out and about during lunch talking with students and picking up trash. He would carry a trash can around and "take donations", serving the students in this way. He greased the bureaucratic wheels and allowed a Bible study (run by students) to be formed on campus; instead of putting up a stink about "separation of church and state" he simply allowed the group to be officially recognized and meet. I believe that his tacit support and approval is a reason we had over 100 students in a school of 2000 (5% of the student body) meet for Bible Study once a week my senior year. In talking with students who transfered in from other schools they said there was a marked difference in the atmosphere of our high school as compared to the school from which they came. I don't think such a positive atmosphere in a public school could happen by accident or by the sincere implementation of humanist philosophy. I think this was the Spirit of God shining through in the actions of the man at the top, influencing those around him. I am convinced that the success of our high school was a direct result of having a man of God running it.

I think this is why I have a hard time accepting a situation that removes Christians from public education; I have seen them do so much good it's hard for me to imagine what my education would have been like without them. I feel that, like Christ, there is good reason to accept the limitations of the public sphere so that we may reach the lost. I am thankful for the impact on my life that Mr. Harrington and the Christians teachers had and I think it would be the best thing in the world if every public school was so blessed. I think that we as the body of Christ are called to be in a place where we are a blessing to the world around us.

To make a metaphor, I see public education exactly as I see evangelism in China. The government doesn't want others coming to know God, we do. Most Christians I know would say that it is worth accepting the limitations that the Chinese government places on Christians who visit that nation so that they may have access to that mission field. If we walk into the airport terminal and start preaching, Bible in hand, then we will be kicked out and have done no good to those we were trying to reach. If we instead take our Bible in, foster good relationships with our neighbors and co-workers, seasoning our speech with Christ, enticing others by the life we live, our character, and the joy we experience, we plant the truth in their lives and demonstrate a better way to live. The aroma of Christ in our lives cannot be ignored, we preach simply by being so consistently God-like day in and day out. Will words need to be said? If we are the ones that will bring them through that first step then yes, we are going to have to open our mouths sooner or later. We will have to preach. That is far from our only tool, though, and it is one we use with skill and precision.

Non-Biblical thought has claimed so much of our culture; we need to continue to engage it and be there, in it, doing what we can. If we get thrown out, we are out of the game and can do no more good for that audience. We cannot be salt and light if we are not there; this is the first rule of evangelism. This is why so many missions agencies are always searching for future missionaries; we need more people there (wherever that may be) being salt and light to others. Our primary goal should not be seen as staying in the game; but if we're not in the game, we can't make a difference.

On Preaching in the Classrooms in Public Schools

You said, "You have said that you think Christians who are in public education need to preaching in the classroom, Bible in hand or they need to get out of public education all together. I think I disagree pretty much 100% so if we can find some kind of way of moving on to that topic eventually I think we would be able to live up to our blogs title a bit better."

Why do you disagree with this? Are you opposed to this in "church" buildings? What makes a church building an "appropriate place" for preachers to preach with Bible in hand? What makes a school building an inappropriate place for teachers to preach with Bible in hand? Our God is Lord of all creation. Of water, earth, and sky. Everything that has breath is to praise the Lord.

If we don't give God praise, the rocks will cry out.

Properly understood, all education should cause us to enthusiastically praise God - not only with our words, but with our minds, and our lives. As we learn wisdom from the great events and tragedies of history, we ought to be thanking God and praising God for wisdom. And we should join the apostles in prayer, "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.'" - Acts 4:25,26 and Psalm 2:1,2. As students learn calculus and physics, they get to see greater insights into the wonders of Creation. How appropriate then to proclaim, "O Lord, our Lord how majestic is your name in all the earth!" - Psalm 8:1. As students read some of the great works of literature throughout history, they can gain knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. How wonderful it would be to see that in light of God's word and the wisdom found therein! But even of greater importance (and I am convinced this is where the real education happens in a Christian setting), when a teacher faces discipline issues in a classroom, they can talk with the misbehaving student and discuss how the attitudes and actions of the student are truly not honoring to the Lord. We teachers have the opportunity to expose the student's need for grace. Then the teacher has the opportunity to adminster the justice of God with a consequence, and the grace of God with a compassionate and understanding listening ear, and a prayer of faith. Finally, in order for the teacher to truly teach things of value in an effective way, they need the grace of God, and the support of other faculty and parents to use the time in the classroom to help children see the value of righteousness and wisdom.

What a crime it is to not allow teachers to pray with their students! How foolish! How faithless! How wicked!

To refuse to allow and encourage teachers to preach the gospel in the classroom is to rebel against the laws of nature and nature's God.

There is no neutral ground.

We, humans, are created to worship. We will worship. If we are not worshipping God, we are worshipping other things or people or idols of some kind. In public schools, the ideas of secular humanism and the ideas of psychology are exalted in the place of God and His word. (Actually, this is really the case in many Christian schools too. Calling a school Christian and copying the same patterns of education that are employed by the public schools does not fix all the problems.) But the point is this: In both public schools and "Christian" schools, idols are being exalted. That idolatry must be confronted and torn down.

Psalm 71:14-18 say, "But as for me, I will always have hope; I will praise you more and more. My mouth will tell of your righteousness, of your salvation all day long, though I know not its measure. I will come and proclaim your mighty acts, O Sovereign LORD; I will proclaim your righteousness, yours alone. Since my youth, O God, you have taught me, and to this day I declare your marvelous deeds. Even when I am old and gray, do not forsake me, O God, till I declare your power to the next generation, your might to all who are to come."

As an educator, these verses are some of my favorite. This is what real education is truly all about. This is worth fighting for.

Man's Wisdom and God's Wisdom

Trevor,

You said, "'How do we determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole?' Put differently, if education is about wisdom and virtue, whose definition of wisdom and virtue are we going to use?"

The thing is this: In one sense, we do not determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole. In a sense, that is impossible. How can I determine what views are to be held by the people of society? Each person makes choices. Those who listen to God listen also to me. Those who do not listen to God do not listen to me. For I am preaching the message of the Bible. See 1 John 3 and 4.

But in another sense, we can to some degree determine which views are to be held by society. We do this by persuading people to see the world the way God has commanded us to see it. There are all sorts of ways to be doing this: Prayer is a good starting point (that is, as long as we are praying in accordance with God's will). Reasoning with people, building relationships, serving people, preaching authoritatively, commanding people to turn to God, and utilizing tools of rhetoric are all tools that we can use. Ultimately though, our message and our intentions must remain pure, and our faith must be in God Himself, and not in any of these tools.

Allow me to be consistent with myself and quote the Bible fairly extensively now.

1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our holiness, righteousness, and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ ad him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" -

but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truts in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"

But we have the mind of Christ.


I hope this clears some things up, but this is a spiritual issue more than it is an intellectual issue.

So, my answer is most definately: "The Bible." And I would argue that I have not missed the "crux" of your question. It is interesting that the word crux means "cross." It really is all about the cross. It would be intersting to see how the word crux has been used throughout history to the point where people use it today to communicate that they want to get down to the central point - the stasis - the fundamental presuppositions on which the entire argument/philosophy either stands or falls.

See, when you ask, "whose definition of wisdom and virtue are we going to use?" you are asking a fundamental question. At this point we are talking about presuppositional apologetics. You say that I am being circular in my reasoning. The Bible is the truth. The Bible says so. Yes, indeed. I am being circular in my reasoning. The reason for this is fairly straightforward: In short, I will not exalt anything over God.

The pastor of my church came into my Bible classes a couple weeks ago to discuss presuppositional apologetics. To illustrate this very point, he had a real neat activity for the students to do. He postulated with this presupposition: Mr. Hillman is the source of all truth. In fact, Mr. Hillman is THE TRUTH - the ULTIMATE REALITY.

Then he divided up the class into two groups: A group that believed this, and a group that didn't. They had a few minutes to come up with arguments to prove to the opposing side their point of view.

Well, it was a fun activity, and it was interesting to see the creativity of my students. I suggested that I am the Truth because I am so darn good-looking. Other people said that I am the truth because I have so much wisdom. And other people said other things. Then Pastor Kenney gave the explanation.

Take the argument that says that Mr. Hillman is the truth because he is so wise.

The person who used that argument compared me to a standard. That standard was "wisdom" or more accurately, his idea and perception of what wisdom is. So, what is the problem? He compared me to this standard - his own perception of wisdom, and upon realizing that I measure up to his perception of wisdom, he said, "Yes, Mr. Hillman is the TRUTH." The problem is that in forcing me to meet his standard of wisdom, he exalted himself and his own perceptions above me, thereby destroying his own argument. If he is above me, then I am no longer the standard of TRUTH; he is - or someone above him is.

Our God is real. He is the living God. He has spoken. He speaks. His word is living and active. His Spirit is real. He is the Only Wise God. We need not exalt our perception of wisdom or the opinions of the masses (democracy) or the opinons of philosophers (oligarchy) or the information made available by science (our ability to acquire data, interpret data, and draw conclusions) over God. We are not comparing God to any other idea of wisdom - because to do so is to exalt that thing over God Himself.

Hebrews 6:13-20
When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants." And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.

Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchageable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.


And now that the theory has been firmly established, on to strategy.

I am not advocating violence against the state.

I am advocating that we put our trust and our hope in God alone and commit ourselves to doing things his way, trusting that God will bless us as we do His work.

In Psalm 90:17, Moses prayed, "My the favor of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us - yes, establish the work of our hands."

I am contending that we humbly and boldly and lovingly stand up for the gospel. We should preach the gospel to those around us. We must engage our culture with courage and humility and love. We can serve people and build relationships - so long as we trust in God and not in our own works of service and relationship building. We must not be ashamed of the gospel. We must contend for the faith.

Now on education specifically, we have to realize that education is not the responsibility of the government. Check out my blurb on "Concerning Camden" at meditationsofdan.blogspot.com. I lay out pretty clearly the Biblical roles of government, church, and families there.

There are many great things that God would have us to do. We must pray. We must be led by the Spirit. We must be in God's word. And then, we must ENGAGE ENGAGE ENGAGE! There is a spiritual war to fight, and we have to fight it with every fiber of our being.

"The just shall live by faith." - Romans 1:17b

Be blessed, my friend.

Dan

One more time....

Dan, I don't mean to be snippy about this but I feel like I still haven't received a straight-forward answer to my question. Let me just make it super-clear one more time:

(quoting from my last post) "How do we determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole?" Put differently, if education is about wisdom and virtue, whose definition of wisdom and virtue are we going to use?

If your answer is simply "the Bible's" then I think you are missing the crux of my question. You state that racism is a moral wrong and as such will never be a civil right. Your (tacit) basis for racism being evaluated as a moral wrong is the Bible. I state that not everybody adheres to the Bible as a moral standard. You say "So? Their wrong." Your basis for the Bible as a moral standard: the Bible itself. Do you see the circular line of thought? Our nation does not accept the Bible as the guide to moral living and telling them that the Bible should be their guide because it says so IS NOT sufficient. You may be right but the case you make is not compelling.

Again, this brings me back to my question. How do we, a nation founded on the plurality of views covering a wide range of topics and opinions, come to a workable guide to defining what our children should be taught? You claim that education is about instilling wisdom and virtue and have consistently held the Bible as the standard in this cause. That is GREAT but simply declaring that you have the standard does not make it so.

We need to find a way to bring Biblical standards into the classroom and your method has fairly consistently been "create a theocracy." Dan, you're a black-and-white person and this is a classic example of that. Perhaps you could think of some alternative suggestions for courses of action that call for something short of a massive political revolution? If you truly believe that is the only way to live a life of integrity then, well, I guess that's what you need to do. For me, I choose to find other ways that allow for smaller forms of success that yield results right now instead of trying to win the war in one massive battle.

Now, I would like to keep the discussion focussed on how to integrate Christianity into education and avoid pure politics as much as possible. If that's where you think this needs to head then so be it. Me, I think we have a lot more we can talk about in the field of education without solving all the world's problems along the way. I think it is important to our discussion that you answer my repeated question but if there is anyway that we can reign in our conversation to our original topic I think that would be great.

There is one question in particular that I would like to get around to eventually. You have said that you think Christians who are in public education need to preaching in the classroom, Bible in hand or they need to get out of public education all together. I think I disagree pretty much 100% so if we can find some kind of way of moving on to that topic eventually I think we would be able to live up to our blogs title a bit better.

The Christian Task in the Present Democracy

I think you are beginning to understand my worldview. However, I do not think it will be possible for you to fully appreciate my worldview until you jump in with both legs.

You ask the important question: "Do people who believe that racism is not wrong have the right to demand that their anti-racism value not be taught in the public schools?"

The Bible speaks about defending "rights." Therefore, to neglect to defend all the God-given rights that people have is to sin. Therefore, your question is very important.

The answer to your question is simple: No.

Racism is wrong. A moral wrong can never be a civil right - regardless of anything the ACLU or the Supreme Court or the NAACP says. People do not have the right to be racist.

Let me turn the issue around: Do I have the right to expect that my children are taught wisdom at a public school? Well, this is actually a very complicated question since the state has not been given the grace nor the mandate to assume responsibility of educating youth. Parents have. But, given that there is a public education system, I would argue that the purpose of the system must be to cultivate wisdom and virtue, which can only be done in the context of the fear of the LORD. Any organization which does not exist for the glory of God is idolatrous by its very nature. That idolatry must be confronted.

To neglect teaching kids that racism is wrong is to teach by default that racism is acceptable. That would be unacceptable.

How do we figure out which values to teach? Look at Jesus' pedagogy. He taught the truth and rebuked those who opposed him. The prophets and apostles did the same thing. We just need to obey God and not man. The word of God is living and active. Sharper the any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Also, if any man speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very word of God.

Is this un-American? Yes. But America is one big philosophical contradiction. The First Amendment is a doctrine. The First Amendment is the demand for the advancement of secular humanism. It was largely inspired by the philosophy of Voltaire. The whole idea of America is to worship the opinions of the masses. The people become gods. Pluralism = polytheism. We have Jesus Christ and the masses and the other principalities and powers which have set themselves up against the knowledge of God. And most Americans say that this is a good thing. But they quickly contradict themselves.

Take John Roberts as an example. He was under tremendous pressure to take a stand to not be an ideologue. In fact, this is part of his ideology - as well as the ideology of most senators and most Americans. Of course, he also asserted that people have a right to privacy and that women have the same rights of men. These, of course, are ideologies. Therefore, to assert that he is not an ideologue is illogical.

The antithesis is real. Neutrality is a myth. We must not bow down to the pressures of our society. We must contend for the faith and demand justice. The just shall live by faith. We must clearly and accurately draw the lines of the antithesis. The left rejects the doctrine of the antithesis. The right draws the lines of the antithesis incorrectly. And I am a voice crying out in the wilderness.

You said, "Again, if this is a moral imperative then it is something that we need to demand be done but it will be a hard fought and difficult battle."

Amen brother. That is the battle we have to fight. Be strong and courageous. Do not let the Book of the Law depart from your mouth. Meditate on it day and night. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Be strong and very courageous because you will lead these people into the Promised Land. Has God not commanded you: Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid. Do not be dismayed. For the Lord our God will be with us wherever we go.

If we are humble, God will entrust us with His authority. We must go forth in His authority and preach the gospel. We must contend for a spiritual revolution that will absolutely transform not only education, but our entire nation.

Show me in the Bible where it says that democracy is a good thing and that we ought to fight for it. Democracy is too often two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper. But praise be to God; we have a deliverer.

Sorry for being out of action so long, circumstances in life have seemed to conspire against me as of late. Give me a moment to re-read and re-ponder the ideas in your last post....

I think your point in the later half is very insightful and it serves a great purpose in sharpening and refining our discussion. In response to my point that Christ is not a universally acknowledged moral basis you succinctly say, "So?". You go on to point out that not everybody agrees that racism is wrong but that our public education system does it's best to teach that it is wrong, regardless of the values of the students, parents and teachers.

This raises a very interesting question: do people who believe that racism is not wrong have the right to demand that their anti-racism value not be taught in the public schools? I don't know history well enough to cite good sources but I know that the busing program in the South (busing black students into schools in white neighborhoods for the purpose of integration) was met with fierce opposition at times from white parents. Did they have the right to that view? Did they have the right to act on that view and demand and advocate for this view in the public forum?

To more clearly connect this with the discussion at hand I think I'm just going to have to reiterate the question at the end of my first post: how do we figure out which values to teach in our public schools given a plurality of opinions on this subject? Moreover, how do we navigate our way through this process knowing that there are more than a few opinions that are diametrically opposed?

Implicit in this question is the value of the individual, a common view of many Americans. This liberty or freedom is one of the founding principles of this nation is probably one of the few things that most Americans perceive as one of the great strengths of this nation. A non-trivial number of the first persons to come to this land were making the pilgrimage to escape governments that would not allow for plurality of views when it came to religious beliefs. Many came for other reasons (economics being a common motivating factor) but it was called "The New World" for a reason: it was a new land full of potential and possibility. And when things got rough, this diverse group of people from nearly part of Europe formed a union that stood the trials of gaining independence from the motherland and continues to this day trying to form itself and it's identity.

The short reminder of history is meant only to make this point: this nation has, since its inception, been forced to deal with the problems of plurality of views in the public forum. Right or wrong, Biblical or otherwise, this IS the current situation of our nation. If you suggest, Dan, that we need to remove this freedom of opinion from our national values then you are suggesting that we fundamentally redefine our identity. Again, if this is a moral imperative then it is something that we need to demand be done but it will be a hard fought and difficult battle.

The big question then becomes exactly the same one I have mentioned above: how do we determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole; how do we make that transition from a plurality of views to a nation of a singular view?

The Antithesis

Of course, you already know my response. Wisdom, virtue, truth, goodness, and beauty are all objective absolutes. Whatever is in line with Christian dogma is right. Anything opposed to Christian dogma is a damnable doctrine and should be opposed sharply.

All truth is God's truth. Since this is true, teaching God's truth has not been completely eliminated from the public school system. For when teachers teach calculus accurately, they are teaching God's truth - which is really neat because there is beauty in Calculus. Learning Calculus enables us to discover the Laws of Nature - the beauty and ordered-complexity of God's Creation. Of course, creation itself is an evangelist testifying to the Power and Beauty and Wisdom of the Creator. Praise be to God.

I have little doubt that once the ACLU realizes this, they will push to not allow the teaching of calculus. Calculus, like Jesus, is very black and white. There are right answers and wrong answers. And I'm sure that the ACLU is dogmatically against any dogmatic assersion that Johnny might be wrong, but Billy is right. The new calculus should be very interesting.

Of course, the truly wise and virtuous person does not give praise to Mohammed or Allah or Buddha. Again, wisdom and virtue are absolutes.

To change "those two words (Christ Jesus)" is a really big deal. I don't give in to that for a second. We are living to see the NAME of Jesus Christ be lifted high. It is the Name above all names. There is power and authority in the Name of Jesus. When we pray in Jesus' Name, it is because we know full well that to pray in any other name is a waste of time at best - and idolatrous at worst. Throughout the Bible, exalting the Name of God has always been a huge deal. That is how we get saved: By calling on the Name of Jesus.

You said, "The plain reality is that not everybody in the US agrees that Christ makes an excellent moral basis in education."

To which I say, "So?"

Since when was evil and ignorance a legitimate point of view?

Not everybody in the US agrees that racism is wrong. But since it is wrong, it is taught to be wrong in the public school system - precisely because of the tenacity of Martin Luther King and others who demanded that to be done. And on what authority, did they make that demand? Well, they fundamentally appealed to righteousness. They appealed to the moral law - which is real and true. It matters not that some don't recognize it. Those people need to be resisted.

And the bottom line is that if Christ is not preached in the public schools, other anti-Christian doctrines will be (and are) preached. There is an anti-thesis. There is no neutral ground. A values-neutral education is not possible - nor desirable. Either teachers will teach what God would have them teach in the manner which God would have them teach it in the grace that God gives them to teach it and with His authority, or they are in rebellion against God.

Obedience or rebellion. Those are the only two options.

When God speaks, to respond to Him with, "I'll just take the neutral ground" is to really misunderstand God. People who say this do not know what it is to fear the LORD.

We must dogmatically demand for the State to let our people go, trusting that God will honor our request as we put our faith and trust in Him as we do things His way.

Semantic Squabbles

In general, Dan, I don't have too much trouble with the definitions that you have thrown out. I have a question regarding your definitions, though; you don't ever give your own definition of "virtue". Since this is one-half of the definition you have given for "wisdom" it seems like it would be pretty important to know what exactly "virtue" is. In particular, how does "virtue" differ from "the accumulation, understanding, and application of ... moral... knowledge."

Making morality a part of the education process really gets to the heart of this debate, I think. As a Christian myself, I would have that all students come to realize that their lives are a mess without God and that they are completely inadequate in and of themselves apart from Christ. I want all to choose to follow Him instead of the dead-end desires of this world and seek to place their lives in complete surrender to him. If education has a moral foundation then I would say that I desire that foundation to be Christ.

If it were only that simple.

The plain reality is that not everybody in the US agrees that Christ makes an excellent moral basis in education. Obviously, as your definitions make clear, in Christian education, Christ is the center of this morality. I think we could change just those two words ("Christ Jesus") and come up with reasonable definitions for many types of moral education:

Islamic Education - the cultivation of wisdom and virtue, nourishing the soul on truth, goodness, and beauty, so that, in Mohammed, the students are better able to fully glorify Allah.

Buddhist Education - the cultivation of wisdom and virtue, nourishing the soul on truth, goodness, and beauty, so that, in the Buddha, the students are better able to fully glorify the Divine Reality/Spirit.

I guess my question to you, Dan boils down to this: must morality play a part in education (ie is values-neutral education even possible) and if not, how can we figure out which morals to teach? Or, to put it another way, if we're going to teach morals in the classroom, on what basis can we substantiate our choice of morals to teach knowing that there is a diversity of views on any given moral question?

And, since this is not an easy question, I'm going to let you take it from here, Dan.