Home Schooling
Dear Brother Don,
I read with great interest the comments of Sis. Gloria and Sis. Jane (61 94) regarding home schooling. I commend their effort and dedication. My own personal opinion is that home schooling is preferable to public.
I was quite disturbed, however, by many of the blanket generalizations used in condemning public schooling and the spiritual priorities of parents who allow their children to attend it. It is a common debating technique to claim the high moral ground in order to put one’s opponent at a disadvantage. When one is searching for facts and practical answers, however, such posturing is not helpful. Nor is it fair to imply that parents who do not home school are shirking their responsibilities or that they do not truly desire to see their children in the kingdom…
In considering home schooling for my children, I have many concrete questions which were not addressed at all. I acknowledge that God originally intended parents to raise and train their children in an agricultural, village-based society. Our society today demands a different type of education if our children are going to be able to support themselves and a family. Our state has graduation requirements intended to assure that students are prepared for college or career. By law, high school students take a series of exams which measure their progress. They then must pass a comprehensive exam in order to graduate. All of these requirements are also applied to children who are home schooled.
At the high school level, college preparatory courses are very difficult. Advanced courses in math, science, computer technology, foreign languages, music and other liberal arts are taught by experts in those fields. Classroom equipment includes the latest computers and lab equipment. How do parents without training in these areas manage to teach at a level which prepares the student for college or career? What if parents do not have a computer and cannot afford one? What about lab equipment and supplies? I would be curious to know how colleges view the records of a child who has been home schooled.
In our district, students are placed on a “career track.” At the freshman level, students are evaluated and interviewed to help them determine what type of career they may prefer to pursue. Although they are not locked into this track, it is designed to provide them with the training and education they will need for a job in the area they have chosen. Students receive special classroom instruction from people who work in these fields, visit their places of employment and sometimes work in co-op arrangements receiving credit for their experience. How can parents duplicate this service? What if a child chooses a career with which the parent is unfamiliar? Do employers respect a home-school education as being equal to or better than a public one?
My final questions are the most difficult for me. My four children range in age from a toddler in diapers to a high schooler. How do you schedule around a wide range of ages? What happens to the schooling process when a baby cries, needs a change or is sick? How do you create a “quiet atmosphere” when a baby and a preschooler are competing for your attention along with the school students? Under these conditions, how do you provide three to four hours of one-on-one time with the school-age children? How is it possible to have profitable discussions regarding the readings or the lessons when you cannot sit down for more than two minutes at a time?
In the two letters regarding home schooling, not one of these questions was addressed. Nor was any mention made of children with learning disabilities or handicaps who would benefit from the help of the trained professionals provided in the public schools.
I hope that these questions and comments might make the point that the reasons why some of us have our children in public school may be a little more complicated than the oversimplified reasons described in the previous letters.
I hope that we can have a practical discussion regarding the nuts and bolts of home schooling without resorting to belittling one another. We all want to provide what is best for our children. We all want our families to be a part of God’s kingdom more than anything else. But we may not always agree on the best way to achieve these goals. We must recognize that there may be legitimate reasons why someone chooses a different approach from our own. The fact is that there is no commandment on this issue. As “Uncle Tom” stated, the jury is still out regarding the benefits of home schooling. It may be that what works well for some is not possible for others. Let us endeavor to encourage each other in the few days that remain so that we may all, with our children, be prepared for the return of our Lord.
Love in Christ,
Sue McKelvie, Moorestown, NJ
Along with a number of practical questions, Sue has made a critical point: there is no commandment respecting the organization of secular schooling. In all the details of the law, in all the advice to the ecclesias, this area is left open to the discretion of the parents. They are to apply spiritual common sense in their particular circumstances.
We should also remember that, once settled in the land, Israel was not a nomadic society. Most people lived in towns and went into the fields or pastures during the day (cf. Ruth 1:22; 2:4; I Sam. 11:4,5; 16:1,11, etc.). We tend to think of an agricultural society being one where people are scattered at some distance from their neighbors. This was not the case in Israel.
While it is certainly true that, under such an arrangement, parents and children would have much interaction with each other, it is also true that a communal (or public) school could be organized. In the absence of any laws on the matter, the people were free to work out their own arrangements from place to place.
Dear Brother Don:
I have read with interest the letters regarding this matter. At one time, my husband, Bro. Joel Siegler, and I were opposed to homeschooling for the same reasons as many others. The responsibility and time involved seemed beyond us and public school developed social and learning skills needed for the work place. Now, after some specific experiences, we definitely feel there needs to be an alternative to the public school system.
When in the ninth grade, one of our daughters was molested in the public school by a fellow student. Receiving no help from the high school in solving the problem, we took her out of the system. I tried homeschooling for over a year but did not feel capable of effectively teaching the required material. She ended up doing her last two years of high school (which she managed to do in one) at an alternative technical college.
Last year, we moved to a suburb of Seattle where our son would be enrolled in high school. The situation was not good: Moral degeneration was widespread; teachers closed their eyes to violence and immorality; weapons were common on school grounds; drugs and gang violence existed. Our son was assaulted by several students when he tried to convince two students to settle their dispute without violence.
Circumstances are nothing like they were 25 years ago. In a health class, homosexuality is taught as an alternative life style. Young people are taught to please themselves, doing whatever feels good with no respect for authority or for others. In some places, if you happen to wear anything that somebody else covets, you could be seriously injured for your clothing. Or you could be exposed to somebody on drugs who goes berserk.
We now have our son enrolled in a private Christian school. The change has been like night and day. He’s enjoying learning again. They open their mornings with a Bible reading and a prayer. Their curriculum is Christian based and they instill respect for authority, possessions and oneself The students come away feeling good about themselves and they are receiving a good education.
Our son had to make up a lot of work that wasn’t taught in the public schools but he is now on the honor roll. It was evident that public school teachers are distracted from teaching by having to substitute as parents, social workers and disciplinarians.
Would we put our son back in the public school system? We do not plan to. But if finances force the move, we know he will have had his first two years of high school in an environment that is compatible with our way of living.
I have nothing but admiration and respect for those brothers and sisters who are making the sacrifices necessary to remove their children from the influence of the world… We must realize that small towns are just as corrupt as large ones. There is no sacrifice too great that we can make to see that our children accept and embrace the commandments we, as brothers and sisters, hold dear.
Love in Christ,
Diane Siegler, Marysville, WA
While encouraging continued comment on this issue, the occasional editorial observation may be useful. Our youngest of four sons is only three years out of high school, and we have a niece living across the street who is going into the tenth grade. Thus our own exposure to the problems is reasonably up-to-date.
We do not feel there is a single best answer. Major problems exist with homeschooling and private Christian schools as well as with the public system. The single biggest factor in the development of godly offspring seems to be family influence. If the family is living the Truth in the home, that will have the dominant impact on the children. Another major factor is the availability and strength of ecclesial activities for young people. They can provide a substitute for school friends and involvement in extra-curricular associations. Given strong home and ecclesial influences, damage from the secular system can more readily be minimized. Weakness in the home or ecclesia, however, changes the equation.
Also affecting the decision is the number of children and the teaching ability of the parents. Home schooling is much more feasible if there are only one or two children and the parents are teachers by profession. We need to remember that the purpose of secular schooling is to prepare individuals for the temporal aspects of their lives, i.e. to make a living. Apart from a very unusual combination of circumstances, we remain dubious that home schooling can accomplish that in the societies in which we live.
Private Christian schools have the disadvantage of cost and of Bible teaching different from our convictions.
For ourselves, we tried to keep very close to our youngster’s activities and friends, always staying involved in school work and assignments. It is important to keep in close contact with what our children are learning at school via discussions with them. Topics such as sex education, values clarification, science (evolution) and the pervasive philosophy of humanism need to be modified by parents on an ongoing basis right through the university years. Although our children weren’t home schooled, they were regularly home re-schooled.
Separation But No Remarriage
Dear Brother Don,
Loving greetings in the hope we all share.
Regarding the letter of Bro. Harry Perks (6194): Bro. Harry writes: “In his earlier teaching, Jesus had already given his ruling on what constituted a lawful cause of divorce with an allowance for remarriage –fornication.”
Matthew 5, as well as Matthew 19, may allow separation in case of fornication, but nowhere is there permission for remarriage given. That would be in direct contradiction to: Matthew 5 end of verse 32; Matthew 19 end of verse 9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:3. God is not the author of confusion!
Your brother in Christ,
Albrecht von Gadenstedt,
Vernon, BC
Appreciation of June Issue
Dear Brother Don,
Greetings in Jesus.
It gave me an uplift to read certain items in the June, 1994 issue. In particular: your editorial on sacrificial offering for human nature. This was an area where we have had difficulty with some in former days. Secondly, Bro. Hayward’ s comments on divisions and thirdly, your remarks of Pat Brady’s letter, especially your last paragraph, were most useful.
How much practical affect will be realized by such input only time will tell. One can only do the best as he sees it.
Best regards,
Charles E. Deighton,
Victoria, BC
Christ Offering For Himself
(For ease of reference, we have numbered the key points in the following letter and in our response.)
Dear Brother Don,
- Your comment, “Apart from saving us, Jesus would not have existed” needs closer scrutiny. Apart from Jesus, we could have no existence. He was in the purpose of God long before sinners came on the scene. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which 1 had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
Jesus was the culmination of God’s purpose in creation. Dealing with sin came about because God, out of His love and mercy, reached out to save a fallen race. These traits of love and mercy were reflected in our Lord and he gave himself wholeheartedly to our salvation. But saving us was not the only, or indeed the main, purpose of his existence, “Thou lovest me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24)…
- The difficulties in the path of our Lord were well-nigh insurmountable. He had to be of Adam’s lineage and nature and render perfect obedience in spite of it. This brings us to your comment on Hebrews 2:9-10, “which sufferings include the sufferings of ” In verse nine of Hebrews 2, we are told, “That by the grace of God, Jesus tasted death for (on behalf of) every man.” How could death then be part of his sufferings necessary for his perfection? His obedience unto death was for us. The perfection of Hebrews 2:10 was required of him before he could make the sacrifice on our behalf (v.9).
- Do we really believe God required someone He loved to be tortured to death to complete His development? The same God who abhorred human sacrifice?…
Yours in the one hope,
Jim Scott, Dundalk, ONT
- Before the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ was in the purpose of God because, in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world, sinners would be saved through him. “…[Jesus Christ is] the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world:” we are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; I Peter 1:18-20). Right from the beginning, the Father knew what would happen and planned that the redemption and glorification of the race would be accomplished through the life, death and resurrection of His only begotten Son. The glory was to be to the Father and to His Son in whom all the promises of God would find their yes and amen.
We should not forget that much of the glory to which Jesus referred in John 17:5 was dependent on his obedience to the death of the cross (cf. Phil. 2:9-11 exalted over all; Heb. 4:14-16 high priest; Rev. 1:5; 5:9 savior from sin, etc.). John 17:5 is not referring to a glory that existed apart from the cross, but to a glory that depended upon it. Trying to separate Christ from his work ends up in a morass of speculation and confusion.
- Christ tasted death for every man, not for every other The whole thrust of Hebrews 2:6-17 is that he is part of the race to whom salvation is possible through him.
- A leader must lead. It would be unreasonable for the Lord to expect his followers to suffer on his behalf if they could not take courage from the fact that he had suffered for them. Faced with cruel suffering, the believers were exhorted “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (I Peter 2:20,21).
Furthermore, the Master was called, not only to reject sin, but also to develop the fullness of faith, hope and submission and developing these qualities requires physical suffering. The Father was not cruel to the Son. While in no way wishing to minimize the enormous suffering of our Lord, the time on the cross was shortened to six hours rather than what was often 60 hours of torture before a person finally expired from crucifixion. In fact, before the final 15 hours of his mortal life, the Lord was miraculously spared any harm against his body including abuse and disease (cf. Psa. 91:4-8, 10-13). The Father set His love upon the Son and was not about to bring more suffering upon him than was necessary for the accomplishment of the divine purpose.
But part of that purpose was that the Son should be a member of the human race. And every member of that race, including the Lord, can only be redeemed by full acknowledgment of the principles set forth in his death and resurrection.
Strong’s Concordance