Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Predestination Considerations

“With the doctrine of predestination, Christians were dramatically freed from dependence on church and state. Predestination freed man from the custodial care of institutions. His determination and salvation came from God, not church or state. It is not an accident but an inescapable fact that the decline of the doctrine of predestination had led to statism and to power-hungry churches…. If the doctrine of predestination is weakened, then church and state are exalted and their powers enhanced.”

R. J. Rushdoony
The Great Christian Revolution

“Every consistent teaching of predestined grace inevitably implies a radical and ultimate devaluation of all magical, sacramental, and institutional distribution of grace, in view of God’s sovereign will.”

Max Weber
The Sociology Of Religion

A squat grey building of only thirty-four stories. Over the main entrance the words, Central London Hatchery And Conditioning Centre, and in a shield, the World State’s motto, Community, Identity, Stability…. “We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future …” He was going to say “future World Controllers” but correcting himself, said “future Directors of Hatcheries,” instead.

Aldous Huxley
Brave New World

Predestination, in Biblical understanding, is the doctrine by which we confess God’s exhaustive sovereignty that extends from eternity past in the decrees of God to eternity future as seen in the fulfillment of all that God ordained.

What we learn from these quotes is that Predestination is an inescapable category. The question is never whether or not predestination is true but rather the question is what or which predestination we will be predestined with and by. Either we will acknowledge and bow to a supernatural predestination or, denying that we will be governed and controlled by a naturalistic predestination — a governance and control that God predestined for the disobedient who seek to cast Him from their thinking.

Should we deny God’s predestination and function as if it is not true we will not suddenly discover the libertarian freedom that so many assure us will be the result of denying God’s predestination but rather we will find our wills bound, as God predestined, by the predestination of some false idol seeking to ascend to the seat of God.

The reality that naturalistic predestination is a reality in America can be seen in the increase of Statism as the Federal Government seeks to predestine the lives of the citizenry. Wherever we find an dramatic increase in centralized planning there we find a state that is seeking to take on the prerogative of predestination.

Wherever we find the State implementing school to work programs that have as their intent channeling individuals to precise places in the work force there we find an example of naturalistic predestination. The language of the “school to work” legislation reveals that the State is embracing the role of predestinators of the future careers of individual students. As B. K. Eakman notes, “The underlying assumption (of School to Work) appears to be that it is not cost effective to have mere individuals making choices about their own lives, that they must be regimented and controlled for their own good and for the good of society.”

Examples could be multiplied but we must understand the connection between abandoning the truth of supernaturalistic predestination and the rise of naturalistic predestination. Predestination is an inescapable reality that never goes away. One significant implication of this is that when people deny God’s supernatural predestination they do not escape the fact that their wills are conditioned by the will of some other naturalistic predestinating source. Another significant implication of this is that just as God predestines to the end of advancing His Kingdom so naturalistic predestinators predestine to the end of building up their respective Kingdoms. Ironically naturalistic predestination always serves God supernatural predestination.

What we see here then is that whenever man seeks to overthrow God’s predestination so that he may experience full libertarian freedom what happens is that his freedom is constrained by naturalistic predestinating agents.

All of this teaches us that if we are a people who desire political and economic freedom we must be a people who embrace the Biblical teaching of God’s predestination for when the Church loses the high notion of predestination the consequence is the reduction and constraint of individual freedoms in the societal realm.

Finally we should learn from this that proper Biblical notions of predestination do not make men careless, languid or lazy but rather makes them active, vigorous and striving since a proper understanding of predestination means that the Christian understands that if he isn’t, in obedience, actively about ordering the world according to God’s revealed law-word he will instead be himself ordered according to the naturalistic predestined will of the state or some other institution. Predestination then, properly taught, energizes and enlivens God’s people.

Independence Day Mediations — Part II

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.”

President John Adams

“[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed.”

President Teddy Roosevelt

“America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”

President Woodrow Wilson

“American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago.”

President Herbert Hoover

“This is a Christian Nation.”

President Harry Truman

“Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny.”

President Richard Nixon

“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.”

“One of the greatest strengths of the United States’ is that it does not consider itself ‘a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

President Barack Hussein Obama

In the last post I worked on teasing out what is required in order for a nation to be considered “Christian.” In summary I said that what must be considered in answering that question are both the Dejure considerations and the Defacto considerations. I argued that the founding Dejure covenanting document of these united States (the Constitution) was quite weak in establishing America as a Christian nation.

However, I also argued that in a Defacto sense the evidence is overwhelming that we operated for decades and decades as a Christian nation as can be seen in the countless official documents and pronouncements that have come from America’s civil institutions and from her elected officials.

In this post I want to look at the question as to whether or not we are currently a “Christian nation.” I want to ask if President Obama was correct to say we are no longer a Christian nation.

Before we do that though, I want to briefly make the case that every nation is a nation that belongs to some god and as such is organized as a theocracy. Nations are constructed culturally and as cultures are theologies incarnated it is inevitable that a nation will belong to the God behind the incarnated theology, even when the god of the culture isn’t explicitly named. Even in a so called “secular” nation, that disavows any god is operating on the basis that the god of the culture is the people autonomously considered. They disavow all gods as the god of their nation because they are the god of the nation.

Now as we turn to whether or not we are currently a Christian nation we should pay attention briefly to our Presidents opinion.

1.) Note that Obama subtly concedes that we were at one time a Christian nation when he says, “Whatever we once were…”

2.) When Obama invokes the idea that we are a people who are bound by ideals and a set of values he begs the questions of our religious orientation since it is religion that produces ideals and sets of values. Obviously we are a people who are bound by ideals and a set of values but then all peoples, along with other factors, are bound by ideals and sets of values. The question that has to be asked is what theology or religion is serving as the fount out of which our ideals and values bubble up.

3.) According to our President we are a people of many gods and no gods. This is a admission that we are a people and a Nation who are polytheistic in our cultural orientation.

The problem with this is that no culture can cohesively function that is genuinely polytheistic. This is due to the fact that in a genuinely polytheistic culture there would be unremitting conflict since the various demands of the competing gods would forever put the followers of those gods at each others throats. In a truly polytheistic culture, there would be continuous culture wars.

As such wherever polytheistic cultures exist they can only function if there is some entity that is in charge of the competing gods setting limits as to how far the claims of the competing gods can be taken. For example, when the will of Allah teaches that women must cover themselves in public comes into conflict with the will of the feminist god who says that women can be topless in the public square some god has to step in to adjudicate the public square conflict between the gods.

This god of the gods in polytheistic cultures becomes the state. The state becomes the policeman of the gods. The state determines how far the gods can and can’t go in the public square. The state tells the adherents of the various gods how seriously they are allowed to take the commands and will of their respective gods.

The ironic consequence of this is that polytheism creates a monotheistic culture. Because polytheism has so many gods, some god must be badged to police the gods. The state then is the monotheistic entity that creates the common bonds that creates a common culture and all gods are welcome as long as all gods are willing to serve the god of the state.

Having said all that I would agree with President Obama that we are a polytheistic nation. The evidence that gives this reality is how the defacto arrangement in this country has gone from implicitly Christian to implicitly humanism. One only has to look at the recent decisions regarding homosexual marriage. Whereas once upon a time the Supreme Court could make rulings about the unacceptability of polygamous marriages saying,

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.”

And in another case, the Court similarly explained:

“The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.

now the courts are making rulings about the acceptability of homosexual marriage saying,

“We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them.”

“This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.”

Say what you will about these decisions, and a multitude of other examples could be produced, some of which are in the opening quotes of this post, but obviously some kind of worldview shift has moved these united States from organizing themselves as a Christian nation to organizing themselves as a polytheistic nation.

Now certainly Christianity continues to contend, along with all the other competitors, for pride of place in our polytheistic nation but what is important to note is that the state is increasingly becoming that entity that polices the gods in the public square and so is in all essence the god of the gods.

All of this is to say that when Independence Day of 2009 roles around we must admit that if we remain a Christian nation it is only marginally so and that there continues an attempt, through the pursuit of multiculturalism, to polytheize us.

We are now in a flux stage where the Defacto sense of who we are as a nation is rapidly shifting and the result of this pursuit of polytheism will be that the eventuality that the one entity that will give us the capacity to function as a cohesive culture is the state taking on the prerogatives of god.

Independence Day Mediations — Part I

“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.”

“One of the greatest strengths of the United States’ is that it does not consider itself ‘a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

President Barack Hussein Obama

On Independence Day 2009 I would like to explore whether or not we can say that we are a “Christian nation.” In order to do so I am going to examine the components we might expect to find in a Christian nation. I hope to show that when it comes to the issue of whether or not these united States are a Christian nation the conclusions suggest that we are a mixed bag.

Exploring the issue of whether or not a nation is a Christian country is a bit more complex then exploring the issue of whether or not a person is a Christian. If we were to look at a individual we would look to see if they were Baptized and if they were members in good standing with a credible profession of faith in a true Church. However one can’t baptize a nation and a nation can’t be a member of good standing in a true church.

Setting parameters require us to admit that a Christian nation is not nor ever has been a nation where all the citizens are genuine Christians, nor is a Christian nation one where every single public official is a genuine Christian. Just as in a Christian church there will be tares among the wheat so in a Christian nation there will be tares.

So what should we look for when asking whether or not a nation is Christian?

I would submit the first thing to look for is whether or not a nation (a people) is Christian is whether or not the nation’s founding public documents recognize the sovereignty of God. This idea of a people covenanting with God is found throughout Scripture. The whole book of Deuteronomy is a document where the nation covenant with God before entering into the promised land. Another example we find is in II Kings 23 where King Josiah, recognizing how Israel had violated covenant, renews covenant with God as part of Israel’s repentance.

This kind of thinking sounds strange to our ears today but we need to recognize that this idea of covenanting with God was not strange to early America. As early as the Mayflower compact stretching through the Royal colonial charters and embracing the early colonial constitutions we have documents that explicitly, in one form or another, recognize the rule of the God of the Bible.

Here are but a few examples, (more examples can be accessed easily through google.)

Delaware Oath For Public Office

“I, _________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

NORTH CAROLINA, 1776:

ARTICLE 32. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

“CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT — July 8, 1777

SECTION 9…And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

“I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.”

By means of these official public documents these were clearly constituted as Christian nations.

In stark contrast to these explicit colonial statements the constitution of these united States is a document were the elements of Biblical covenanting are completely absent.

1.) In the US constitution there is no directly conscious and meaningful mention of the sovereign authority of God. Instead what we find is that the sovereign authority is lodged in “We the people.” It is as if “We the people,” are serving as both parties in the covenant. “We the people,” are both the sovereign authority and those submitting to the sovereign authority.

2.) In the US constitution it is expressly said that, “No religious test shall ever be required for any office of public trust under these United States….” This statement is a poison pill against the idea of covenanting and so weighs heavily against the idea that, in a DeJure sense, these united State was constituted as a Christian nation.

In my estimation eliminating the need for a religious test itself became a kind of subversive humanist religious test as the deletion of a overtly religious test created and reinforced the mindset that man could operate autonomously apart from God.

3.) In the US constitution there is no reference to God’s law as the standard by which men would be ruled.

This stands in contrast to such governing documents such as “Abstract Of The Laws Of New England.” What we find in the constitution instead of laws anchored in Scripture is the statement, “This Constitution and the laws of the the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land…” As in the previous two examples it is as if some form of humanism is the reigning religion.

So, when we consider the US Constitution we must conclude that while it is a covenant document the covenant parties are “We the people,” with “We the people.” This is completely subjective and it is a form of humanism and such a document would hardly, in a Dejure sense, constitute a people as Christian.

This lack in the US constitution of acknowledging the Sovereignty of God and His Christ was not lost on people who lived during that time.

The attention of Washington was called to this omission. After he was inaugurated, in 1789, as the first President under the Constitution, the Presbytery Eastward, in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, sent a Christian address to Washington, in which they say, “We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgment of the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He
has sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country.”

Now to be fair we must admit there are a couple incidental references to Christianity and the God of the Bible in the US Constitution.

1.) The US constitution was signed “In the year of our Lord.”

Now this isn’t insignificant when one considers that in the French revolution there was an attempt to create a completely new calendar. The fact that the Constitution recognizes God in this fashion is a small indicator that these were a Christian people.

2.) The Sabbath exception clause.

Some argue that as the constitution exempts the Lord’s Day in counting as a day to be included in the count of days before a President was required to sign legislation indicates that the constitution is a Christian document.

These two examples, in my estimation, prove only that the context in which the constitution was written and signed was Christian. It doesn’t prove, in a Dejure sense, that our covenant document is Christian or that we were established as a Christian nation.

Now, having conceded that we must realize that the nation and government that was formed by the constitution was a government that was extraordinarily restricted. The issues of social order, and religious identity were to be left to the new states — which is why the Federal government was not allowed to establish a religion. Questions of religious supremacy were to be handled by the individual states.

Still, in retrospect it must be said that the US constitution made an egregious error by not explicitly invoking the sovereignty of God. So when we consider the Dejure aspect of whether or not we were established as a Christian nation we would have to say that looking at our founding document does not give us a great deal of hope on the issue.

We have been emphasizing the Dejure sense as it concerns our being founded as a Christian nation. Now, I want to change gears to the Defacto sense of the issue. Dejure is a Latin phrase that means “concerning law”, as contrasted with de facto, which means “concerning fact”.

I am convinced that while the Dejure sense of our being founded as a Christian nation is in doubt there can be no doubt that in a defacto sense that we have been for most of our existence a Christian nation.

The evidence for this is overwhelming and as been exhaustively and thoroughly documented in Robert Morris’ “The Christian Life and Character Of The Civil Institutions Of The United States.” Also one should access Christianity & The Constitution,” by Eidsmoe.

Here are but a few examples,

“The people of the colonies … are, therefore, not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. Their governments are popular in a high degree. If any thing were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, Religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion—always a principle of energy in this new people—is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants, and of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion, sir, not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it. The dissenting interests have sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the world, and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim to natural liberty. All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our Northern colonies is a refinement on the spirit of the principle of resistance: it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations, agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in most of the Northern Provinces. The colonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the migrants was highest of all; and even the stream of foreigners which has been constantly flowing into these colonies has, for the greater part, been composed of dissenters of their own countries, and have brought with them a temper and a character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed. A fierce spirit of liberty has grown up; it has grown up with the growth of your people, and increased with the increase of their population and wealth—a spirit that, unhappily, meeting with an excess of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any idea of liberty, much less with theirs, has
kindled this flame which is ready to consume us.”

Edmund Burke
Speech in British Parliament

Congress, the day before Washington was inaugurated, passed the following—

Resolved, That, after the oath shall be administered to the President, the Vice-President, and members of the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, will accompany him to St. Paul’s Chapel, to hear divine service performed by the Chaplains.

The first session of the first Congress was not suffered to pass without a solemn act of legislation recognizing the Christian religion. It was a national thanksgiving, proclaimed by the authority of Congress.

The Journals of Congress present the following record.

Sept. 25, 1789

Day of Thanksgiving

Mr. Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them. With this view he would move the following resolution—

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.

Mr. Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgiving
and rejoicing which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the temple was a case in point. This example he thought worthy of imitation on the present occasion.

Countless more examples of this kind of thing can be found at,

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909

All of this data indicates that there can be no doubt that in a defacto sense these united State were a Christian nation.

Part II — Are We A Christian Nation Today?

The Other Statist Robert Reich — From The Archives

Today a internet friend of mine (Dr. R. C. Sproul Jr.) is debating Dr. Robert Reich in London on the issue of homeschooling, which Dr. Reich insists is “dangerous.” Now, it just so happens that the good Dr. Robert Reich and I crossed swords in Feb. of 2007. So, in honor of the Sproul vs. Reich London Debate I am going into the Iron / Acid archives and re-posting my exchange with the same Dr. Reich.”

February 2007 Article

Recently, I posted a quote from Dr. Robert Reich and analyzed it in my commentary. It seems that Dr. Reich is an Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ethics in Society, and, by courtesy, Education, at Stanford University. Somehow Dr. Reich read my piece critiquing his quote and was apparently a bit miffed. First, I had accidentally identified him as the former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration. I hope Dr. Reich can forgive me for attributing his quote to a man with whom he shares a name. Second, in his e-mail to me Dr. Reich implied that I had failed to do the intellectually honest thing by not actually learning what his arguments are, and he complained directly that I had extrapolated what he considered ‘an entire worldview’ from a two- or three-sentence quote. Dr. Reich then generously sent me two short articles he wrote where he elaborated on his convictions of the ‘Civil Perils of Homeschooling’ and on ‘Why Homeschooling Should Be Regulated.’ After reading them, I am compelled to confess that I owe people an apology and that I was indeed intellectually dishonest.

So, in dust and ashes I do repent. I apologize that I misrepresented Dr. Reich. I am sorry that I under-emphasized the danger of this man’s thinking. With tears and sorrow I confess that I was intellectually dishonest by not being rigorous enough in my first analysis and for being far too generous about what Dr. Reich advocates. I trust people will be able to forgive me for not sounding clearly enough the warning against the extremes of his position. So, in order to set the record straight, allow me to try to atone for my error by examining more fulsomely some of the general Weltanschauung errors in Dr. Reich’s thinking, as well as some of his particular errors in respect to homeschooling.

This will be the first of a two-part response to Dr. Reich’s writings. In the opening salvo I will be exposing the inadequacy of Dr. Reich’s reasoning in response to his complaints concerning the over-customization of the education process, his concerns about the potential creation of civic troglodytes that the unregulated homeschooling process might produce, his protestations that the homeschooling process potentially deprives children of freedom, and his observation concerning the possible dangers that parent-controlled education creates. In part two, I will be giving you the analysis of Dr. Reich’s article by four homeschooling students with whom I have the privilege of interacting. I have asked them to use their own critical thinking skills in dissecting Dr. Reich’s approach.

First, Dr. Reich is concerned that homeschooling is an over-customization of the education process. Reich writes,

“Customization threatens to insulate students from exposure to diverse ideas and people and thereby to shield them from the vibrancy of pluralistic democracy.”

As I read this comment I can’t help but observe that our pluralistic democracy did fine for decades without the common school movement that the Unitarians eventually spawned in this nation as they foisted the Prussian school model on America’s children. Second, I also must conclude that the problem here for Dr. Reich isn’t customization but rather customization that isn’t the customization that Dr. Reich desires. Dr. Reich desires to customize education for ALL children in a particular way. We would observe that just because 20 million children receive the same customized education, that doesn’t make it any less customized. The problem for Dr. Reich is not that education is being customized but rather that it is not being mass customized. Third, the very reason that many parents teach their own children at home is so their children will be insulated from exposure to secular humanist ideas and people, and to shield them from the degeneracy of multiculturalism. Dr. Reich doesn’t seem to understand that education is a singularly religious exercise, and that Christians who are epistemologically self-conscious don’t want to turn their children over to people who are intent, whether consciously or not, on catechizing their children into a false religion. Fourth, Dr. Reich seems to understand that modern schools have been one of the institutions that have served as the great leveler for a nation’s citizenry. That is to say, somewhere on the edges of Reich’s consciousness there is an understanding floating around that education’s intent is not primarily to educate but to make good citizens. Reich comments on this,

Dr. Reich continues,

“…the point I am trying to make here is merely that the state has a legitimate interest in trying to convey some basic ideas about citizenship through schoolhouses.”

When this thought is stripped of its high-sounding sentiment, what is left is that Reich believes the state through the schoolhouse is responsible for bending our children in the direction that the state desires them to be bent. Surely we can see that our enemy, the state, in the name of ‘basic ideas about citizenship,’ can do all kinds of mischief and damage to our children.

Now, the problem the Christian has with this sui generis purpose of education is that the time has long passed since the Christian faith had any input on what constitutes a ‘good citizen.’ In short, epistemologically self-conscious Christians know that the standard that is being used to create a ‘good citizen’ in America’s schools is not one with which they want anything to do. Indeed, I would say we are not far from the time when a ‘good citizen’ translates into being a bad Christian.

Fifth, I can only guess at what Dr. Reich means by ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy.’ It would be easy enough to find in that phrase a euphemism for ‘multiculturalism,’ but let’s give the good Doctor the benefit of the doubt and contend that what he is getting at is a type of culture and society that existed in colonial America in 1789 where this was a nation with various stripes of Christians who were able to co-exist with one another. If that is what Dr. Reich means by ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ then I can only offer my opinion as someone close to the homeschool movement, as well as a Pastor who sees a good number of homeschool families, that Dr. Reich should not worry. Most of our homeschool meetings reflect the vibrant pluralistic democracy about which he is concerned.

If, on the other hand, Dr. Reich is defining ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ to mean multiculturalism, and if he is contending that we need to steep our children in that monoculture mindset that teaches that all faiths and cultures are worthy of equal esteem and respect, then we can only remain politely defiant to his solicitations. We freely admit that we are teaching our children the traditions of our Christian Fathers that is styled ‘Christianity.’ This faith that we teach, our Fathers received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and in teaching this faith we teach that this one true faith creates a culture that is to be preferred and pursued, by way of persuasion, over all other cultures, including – especially – the monoculture of multiculturalism.

At this point it is clearly seen that one of Dr. Reich’s main concerns is the civic peril he envisions when parents are in total control of their children’s education; but in the end, what this concern boils down to is that Dr. Reich is concerned (threatened?) by the change in society and culture that homeschooling might bring. Certainly, Christian children taught by epistemologically self-conscious Christian parents will likely lead to a re-definition of what ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ means, but then that is a conversation for the public square that is long past due. It is my opinion that Dr. Reich is trying to tilt that conversation in his direction by suggesting that home schools should be regulated. Whether that is his intent or not, it certainly will be the effect if his advice is heeded.

In rounding this section off, I need to add that most homeschooled children I know would run rings around their government schooled counterparts when it comes to competency in what used to be called ‘Civics,’ and ‘Citizenship.’ Would to God that government schooled children had a proper foundation in Constitutionalism, for if they did, the conversation for the public square that I mentioned in the previous paragraph would suddenly be tilted in my direction.

Now we turn to Dr. Reich’s next concern, which is that a totalized homeschool environment that is controlled by parents impinges upon the freedom of their children. The good Doctor says,

“Simply put, protecting the freedom of individuals is the main engine of diversity – diversity of religious belief, diversity of belief in general…. The liberal democratic state therefore ought to protect the interest of children in being free, or as I have put it elsewhere, in becoming autonomous adults.”

Beyond the implication that homeschooling adults don’t want to see their children become autonomous adults, there is plenty wrong with this tripe. First, the diversity that Reich makes mention of is a crock. American culture is every bit as homogenous as Japanese culture. If this culture was truly as diverse as Reich makes it out to be, it couldn’t function. If diversity were really what Reich is after then he would vociferously protect unregulated homeschooling since homeschooling creates the kind of diversity that doesn’t conform to our uniform culture of psuedo-diversity. Second, individuals never exist abstracted from some cultural or societal web. There is no such thing as individuals who are socially un-situated or culturally un-contexted. All individuals are colored, shaped, and influenced by some situated community. Hence, we must say that both the kind of non-communitized individualism and the kind of non-socially bonded freedom that Reich intimates is nonsense. So then the question comes down to what community is the best community for a child to thrive? Reich contends that the best community is the state, while the Christian, following God’s Word, contends that the best primary community for a child to thrive in is the family. Now Dr. Reich may take great umbrage at this characterization, but what else are we to conclude? His concern is that a child’s individuality and freedom will be taken from him in a totalized homeschooling situation as is understood when he says,

“Unregulated homeschooling opens up the possibility that children will never learn about or be exposed to competing or alternative ways of life…Parents can limit opportunities for social interaction, control the curriculum, and create a learning environment in which the values of the parents are replicated and reinforced in every possible way.”

Dr. Reich’s suggestion to rescue our poor children from this abuse is by bringing in the state to regulate the parents’ teaching. Read again what we previously quoted from Dr. Reich,

“The liberal Democratic state therefore ought to protect the interest of children in being free, or as I have put it elsewhere, in becoming autonomous adults.”

Now in fairness, Dr. Reich says that he wants to ‘prevent both governmental and parental despotism over children,’ but his observations and his solution presupposes that parents are more inclined to despotism over their seed then government would be over our children. Anybody who is familiar at all with either loving parents or government schools surely must realize what a leaky assumption that is.

Pursuing this ‘freedom argument’ Dr. Reich writes,

“…one of the most effective and least intrusive ways the state has of discharging the obligation to protect and promote prospective freedom of children – a freedom that they will exercise fully as adults – is to ensure that children receive an education that develops them into free or autonomous individuals, that is to say, persons who can decide for themselves how they wish to lead their lives and what sort of values they wish to endorse. Such an education, I believe, requires exposure to and engagement with value pluralism, the very social diversity that is produced in a liberal democratic state which protects individual freedom.”

Again, with this quote Dr. Reich lets his presuppositional slip show. Reich seems to be convinced that the result of parents homeschooling their children will be adults who will not be free or autonomous individuals. I can’t speak for the whole homeschooling community but I find this both condescending and personally insulting. Second, I must admit that I want my children to grow up to embrace my values. I would even go further by saying that it is my job as a parent to make sure they grow up embracing my values. This is a charge that God’s Word puts on me as a parent (Deuteronomy 6:4-7), and only a man influenced by a culture that thinks it can re-imagine itself with every generation, pursuing that agenda by cutting itself off from both its forebears and its progeny, would contend that there is something wrong with children who grow up to freely embrace their parents’ values because they were taught to do just that. Third, it is evident that for Reich the standard by which all things must be measured is ‘value pluralism.’ Beyond the disputation that such a notion is possible, this is a standard to which no biblical Christian can subscribe. Christians do not value ‘value pluralism.’ Finally, for the biblical Christian the whole notion of freedom is circumscribed by biblical categories. For the biblical Christian man can never be free in any sense unless he is the bondservant of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the freedom that Dr. Reich is calling for is just bondage by another name. I am fairly certain that Dr. Reich isn’t going to agree with that premise, and so it is clear the Grand Canyon separates our understandings.

And that brings us to the worldview issues that I promised to deal with at the beginning of this paper. Superficially and quickly speaking, worldviews are composed of the approach to six different issues: Theology, Ontology, Anthropology, Epistemology, Axiology, and Teleology. Now that I have read Dr. Reich’s fuller works, I would say that for all practical purposes, his theology is a kind of Statist approach. I say this because God’s Word has clearly given the responsibility of education to parents. Parents may decide to delegate this responsibility, but it remains their responsibility. Dr. Reich, contending with God, wants the State to be involved in education, yet not only does the Scripture not teach that the State’s sphere of sovereignty extends to the education of children, our Constitution likewise clearly prohibits the federal state from being involved in this area by saying that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ Dr. Reich would be hard pressed to show where, either in the Scriptures or in the Constitution, provision is made for the state to usurp to itself the sovereignty that belongs to the spheres of the family and the church. Because Dr. Reich is teaching contrary to God’s Word in this area, I must conclude that the god in his worldview is not the God of the Bible. As it concerns anthropology, I would say that Dr. Reich’s worldview teaches that man’s nature is malleable and that education is the tool by which man can progress to full self-realization. Why else would he be so convinced of the need to get the state’s hands on our children? This would be contrary to the Christian worldview that teaches that man’s nature is fixed and sinful and that it can only be changed by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and redemption. Children therefore must be taught to look for all the treasures of wisdom in Christ Jesus. As it concerns axiology, I would offer that Dr. Reich’s worldview is that the ultimate value is ‘value diversity,’ ‘liberal Democratic States’ with their rich diversity, and individual freedom and autonomy. This of course contrasts with the Christian worldview which teaches that the Christian’s ultimate value is God’s glory, and therefore every Christian, whether child or adult, should be taught to do all they do to the end of seeing God glorified. One implication of this is that in their education, children must be taught to see how the various disciplines only make sense and only reach their apex in wisdom when they seek to glorify our Creator and Redeemer. I will leave the other three worldview issues alone as Dr. Reich’s writing don’t give me solid ground to speak to his position, though given the evidence regarding the first three issues, his worldview is not compatible with a Christian’s understanding.