Dear Pastor — Ask The Pastor

This response to my recent post analyzing the problems of alternate schooling comes from a young man who is alternately insightful and muddled in his thinking. I thought I would turn it into a post in order to continue to tease out different understandings that contend for the privilege of being called ‘Reformed.’

Bret,

Having strong (W2K, viral, I know!) views on education myself, I can’t help but wonder if at the base of your frustrations are a couple of things: 1) the over-realization of the purpose and function of education, and 2) the necessarily low view or under-realization of the institution of the family.

Steve, allow me to deal with these in reverse order. My conviction is that schooling should not be shipped out and should be done in the family setting. I believe that when we ship our children out to strangers we have a necessarily low view of the institution of the family. I believe therefore this would include you as, as I recall, you farm out your children to be educated by strangers. My conviction on the family is that it should be the primary building block for the Church, the realm that should make modern schools obsolete, and the first Republic. I don’t know how anybody could have a higher view of the family than myself.

As to your suggestion that I have an over-realization of the purpose and function of education I would only reply by saying that I’m sure that would seem to be the case to somebody who suffers from an under-realization of the purpose and function of education. This disagreement stems from our different eschatologies. You are forever going to be accusing me of a over-realized eschatology and I am going to forever be rightly discerning your problem of a under-realized eschatology. This push-me, pull-you on eschatology between us is going to affect every issue and every discipline.

While there is most assuredly an intellectual aspect to it (that is unashamedly undermined in both cult and culture as both take their cues from a modernism that has rendered an epistemological choice between reason and experience), the end result to these presuppositions seems to be an equally aberrant intellectualization of Christian belief. Is the answer to the de-intellectualization of the Christian religion even as it becomes exchanged for the experientialism of revivalism really to indulge the notion that Christian belief is to be farmed out to the classroom instead of the home and church?

Well, I should emphasize for readers that we have a couple points of agreement here.

1.) We agree that our educational models are suffering intellectually.

2.) We agree that there is a danger to the Christian faith both from an unbliblical experientialism and a unbiblical rationalism.

Moving on, I hope in my first paragraph above I have squelched any idea that ‘Christian belief should be farmed out to the classroom instead of the home and church.’ My conviction is that the classroom, and home, and church while decidedly distinct are interdependent and all share the responsibility to be shapers of faith. Education, being a distinctly religious undertaking, Christian parents should be slow to farm out their children to classrooms governed by people who are not epistemologically self conscious regarding their Christianity.

You seemingly fault me for heading in a direction that you fear will result in a aberrant intellectualization of the Christian faith. We should say that Christianity is eminently, though not exclusively, rational and as such the intellectual aspect of Christianity should be pursued with vigor. Indeed, I would contend, that this is supported by the teaching of Jesus when he said that eternal life is to know the only true God and the Christ that He sent. The only way to know God is through the intellect. This is a truism that is accepted by all save the mystics. Now, to qualify, I understand that there exists such a thing as arid rationalism that is to be hated but the pursuit of rationality need not end in arid rationalism.

In my experience with the Dutch Reformed community (the CRC) that places such a high premium on Xian education there seems to be this notion that what the home should be doing—nurturing faith—can be co-opted by the school. I find that completely, well, sub-Christian. The project of education is primarily intellectual, not affective. It is the role of the home to be primarily affective. My wife and I nurture Christian belief in our kids, not Mr. or Mrs. VanVanderVandeMeer.

Speaking from what I have seen after 13 years of affiliation with the CRC, I would agree that there existed a idea that the school and the catechism at Church should do what should have been going on in the home. I agree that such a notion is sub-Christian. But allow me to suggest that one reason this failed is that the schools and the Churches became co-opted by the larger culture. Consequently, the nurturing of Christian faith, was not be accomplished anywhere, though the nurturing of the faith of modernism was happening in the church and in the school.

I would take issue with you in your third sentence above. You seem to desire to separate the intellectual from the affective. This is not possible. If the education is successful in its project of the intellect it will also have been successful in the work of the affective. Similarly, if the home is successful in its affective work it will only be due to the fact that it has been successful, in doing intellectual work. Steve, you can not separate these two the way that you seem to be doing. Certainly the two are distinct but they are not un-related. Where ever you send your children to be educated you can be sure that they are learning the affective, and are being nurtured in some faith system.

This disagreement between us stems from our disagreement on the Lordship of Jesus and how that is exercised. You, of course, are wrong.

In the same way that theonomic thoughts ends up politicizing true religion, I strongly detect on your part this same assumption that results in an intellectualizing of Christian belief. Instead of seeing that Christianity in the business of making believers you seem to see it as a project of making students.

Look, Steve, you’ll have to take this problem up with Jesus. It was Jesus who called us to be disciples. Hard to be a disciple without being a student Steve. Further, it was Jesus who said that we were to teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.’ If I am teaching people to observe all things and they are learning to observe all things doesn’t that make them ….students?

Steve, this culture, is designed to keep people ignorant and stupid. Dumb people are easier to control. Legion are the names of the books that have made this point. In light of this reality the accusation that you level against me of wanting to seeking to make students is, shall we say, ‘odd.’

Finally, nobody need to worry about any lack of affections or emotions on my part. They work just fine.

Your hunch that Xian schools are just glorified government schools is correct, at least around here. (I also see it as very much a carried over effort in the effort to maintain a particularly ethnic project, to keep the Dutch migratory culture sufficiently cohered; this against the fact that cultural assimilation has been finalized and renders the effort quite irrelevant. The only thing left to lean on to justify Xian education is that mistake which leads people to believe that Xians doing education is the same thing as Xian education.) But, unlike you, I only see that as a problem because I see no value in paying for a glorified public school education. And I am not compelled to to go on the wild goose-chase to find real Xian education since it doesn’t exist.

Well, we agree completely in this paragraph until your last sentence. I wouldn’t pay a thin dime for my children to attend Dutch ‘Christian’ schools. Indeed, I would pay good money in order for my children not to go to them. I even agree that you shouldn’t go on a wild goose chase, because I seriously doubt there is any real Christian education in your area. Where we disagree is when you utter complete tripe by saying that there is not such a thing as genuine Christian education. That is just a stupid statement.

But I understand your ‘theology’ forces you to that conclusion.

Thanks for the letter. I honestly believe you to be, in many regards, a sharp fellow. But like so many in your school you sharpness in one statement is immediately negated by your dullness in a succeeding statement.

Take care. I continue to pray for your Church that it might find a godly pastor.