This is a question. This is only a question. If this had been a real statement ... well, never mind. I'm only asking.
I have many relatives who are missionaries to foreign nations. Some are translating the Bible into obscure languages. Some are doing that whole "Africa" thing. I know one particular family in the family who intentionally chose to go to somewhere "not safe". They couldn't tell us where they went. They used code for the location. The couple took their little children and went knowingly into harm's way to share the Gospel in a not merely ignorant place, but a hostile place. And I had to wonder, "Is that right?" I get when people risk their own lives to share the Gospel. But is it right to risk the lives of their children for the Gospel? A question, just a question, because I don't have a sure answer.
The answer, however, might have ramifications. Consider this. Many Christians today have decided to keep their children out of the public systems. They have decided that the sinners are prevailing in schools, for instance, and so, in order to properly educate and protect their children, they are homeschooling them. I admire such people and see both the concern and the value. On the other hand, if we are to be light in the world, if we are not to hide our light under a bushel, if we are warned against withdrawing from the world (1 Cor 5:10), and if your answer to the previous question is "Yes, it is right and necessary" or something like it, then wouldn't the same apply here?
Here's the question. If you're a believer with children and you're working at keeping your children out of the public influence and corruption, is this right? Or should we parents be training our children and putting them (in God's hands) in those places where they can be lights in the darkness even though they will be "at risk"? Like I said, just a question, because I do not have the answer here.
14 comments:
I don't have an answer either (a great way to start off a response...lol), but just something additional to chew on. Many people believe that when Scripture mandates that we are to train our children in the way they should go, they take that to mean that it is our responsibility, not the governments. Thus, it doesn't necessarily mean they pull them out of the public schools simply to shelter them from sin, but because they see it as their responsibility to teach their own children.
Now, if they give their children no outlet in which they can practice "being a light," then they certainly would still fall into the camp you suggest.
Having just had a conversation about our Sovereign God, is risk really risk? I mean, God has revealed His will for us in His Word. His Word says, "Go into all the world..." On top of that, His words says, "Man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps." In other words, we can only be obedient to what we know, which is "Go." God's responsible for directing us to exactly where He wants us. So, if we go to a place as dangerous as your family has gone out of obedience to Him, is in not exactly where God wants them, and thus make it a 'riskier' proposition to be anywhere else?
Look at Abram. God told him to go to the land that He had given him, but He didn't tell him where that was. So, out of obedience, Abram made a decision. "I guess I'll go to the east," or whatever, not knowing where, exactly, God wanted him to go. God was responsible for putting Abram exactly where He wanted. Abrams responsibility was to be obedient. Was that "risky?" I say, no.
Just some thoughts...not dying on any hills, here.
While I don't know that I would put this in the category of wrong or right. I chose as a teen to stay in public schools for this very reason. As a parent I have chosen to keep my kids in public schools for this very reason. If our public schools were bad I might have made a different choice from an educational standpoint. This is also why 1 of my kids has been to Haiti with me and the other will go.
This is all new thinking to me, a result of seeing a random comic strip, in fact. You two have made some good points. I also note that both of you say things like "not dying on any hills, here" and "I don't know that I would put this in the category of wrong or right".
As for "risk", I think there is "risk" in the human sense and it is even good stewardship on the part of believers to, from the human perspective, manage those "risks", even though we understand that in the final analysis God is in charge. I mean, we buy insurance and lock our doors and don't walk in bad neighborhoods at night (or some such). I wholly object to the idea of walking blindly through life with the position "What will be will be".
Here's the distinction for me: The missionaries are with their kids, but if you send your kids to public schools you aren't there with them -- and you may have teachers committed to undermining your authority and teaching the opposite of your worldview all day long.
We sent our kids to relatively conservative public schools (except the last two years when my youngest daughter "home-schooled" -- mainly classes at the local junior college) but if I had to do it over again we'd home school exclusively.
Having missionaries in my family (lots and lots), I know that it's not true that being in the mission field with your kids means that you're with your kids. They go to mission schools or local public schools (for Americans or the like) or other such places.
Regardless of whether or not the children are with the parents, though, I think (indeed, am deeply concerned about it) that parents are responsible for their children's education. One huge mistake that lots of families make, for instance, is to assume that their children are getting good (or sufficient) biblical education in the children/youth group setting at church. Been there, done that -- it's not happening.
One question I do have, though, is about the training of our children. If we keep them at home and school them (and I fully understand and sympathize with that desire), where do they learn how to deal with the problems? Where do they learn the answers to objections when the objections aren't occurring? Where do they go to shine the light of the gospel? Where do they learn how to interact with unbelievers? It seems like a key element (read "command of Christ") might be missing in this environment.
I don’t think families with small children should be missionaries where it is dangerous. Let the kids grow up; there are plenty of missionaries without small children.
As for leaving the public school system, it is not a matter of being the light in the world, rather it is a matter of not putting soldiers into combat before they’ve been trained. It is virtually impossible to have younger children trained well enough to be able to defend their faith in the public school system, let alone teenagers. Not only that, we are told in Prov. 4:23 to guard our minds above all else, and the Psalmist says he will set no vile thing before his eyes (101:3), yet in the public schools our children are daily bombarded with filth either by the teaching or by their peers. Their minds are filled with all sorts of garbage on a consistent basis. The fact that they are in school for so many hours of the day with continuous bad influence wreaks havoc with any teaching which goes on at home. Don’t forget that Scripture also cautions us about the company we keep.
We home-schooled our oldest from the 9th grade and our youngest from the 6th. We had no problem teaching them to deal with anything life threw at them, and because they were not peer-oriented, they were much more socially adjusted to all ages than any of their peers!
There, see? That's also along my lines of thinking. (Of course, when I voiced it people objected.)
It's interesting though, that you put your kids in public school when they were youngest (AKA least prepared) and then home-schooled when they got older.
This may be a very difficult question, but if "before they’ve been trained" is the problem, when would they be "trained" sufficiently to be lights in their world? Obviously small children need to get their candles lit before they can be lights to the world, but at what point is it a good idea to venture out?
We never knew about home-school until we were having so much trouble with what the school was teaching, and other garbage that went on in a supposed excellent school system. We had some friends who began home-schooling a couple years before we did, and it was their experience which helped lead us to the decision.
I don't care how well prepared a kid is to go to school, he still has to listen to teachers tell him homosexuality is just another lifestyle while he is not permitted to object. He still has to listen to evolution forced down his throat and is ostracized should he question the dogma. He still has to listen to socialist, revisionist history and praise for all things left-wing. Why should anyone, even an adult, have to listen to all that when they are not able to rebut or counter in any way?
From you response to my question I would guess that your answer is "Never." No children of any age should ever be put in a place where they will be told lies without the ability to openly challenge the lies. (I would assume, from that, that you would certainly be against kids going to secular college, where it is the worst of that world.) (And don't assume that my comment is intended as a negative. My parents were happy to help out with college tuition ... as long as it was an acceptable Christian college.)
There is some difference between children under their parents authority being forced to endure the lies of the forced public school system without the ability to rebut, and adults attending college (I consider anyone 18 years old an adult) with a personal choice to sit there.
Hopefully by the time one enters college, even if they can't rebut they at least know the professor is wrong. However, I personally wouldn't spend my money at any institution which required me to listen to garbage without being able to rebut.
isn't this one of those things where it is a decision that should be made by the parents based on specific circumstances? Ultimately don't we all have to operate in a secular world? Why wouldn't we want to equip our kids to deal with this as early as possible? I certainly wouldn't be dogmatic about the choice someone else might make in this type of situation.
It's a good point, Craig. Good parents, as an example, provide different education for learning disabled children than for exceptionally bright children (to draw sharp distinctions). Well-prepared kids may be ready to face the "public arena" sooner than less prepared kids. Parents need to 1) know their children and 2) be responsible for their children. I don't think there's a blanket statement.
Something else someone else pointed out in email. Taking kids to the mission field where they could be killed for their parents' faith is not the same thing as putting them in spiritual harm's way where they won't likely die but their faith could be killed (so to speak). We are not to fear those who can kill the body. The two dangers are not the same.
Oh, and, in case I didn't make it clear, I'm perfectly okay with "I certainly wouldn't be dogmatic about the choice someone else might make in this type of situation." This can't be a case of "this view is right and anyone who does something different is wrong" since no such command exists in Scripture.
I would never say dogmatically that Christians should abandon public schools, because you have to take them individually. Believe it or not, there are still SOME good ones left. But in general, they are horrid and indoctrinate rather than educate.
Post a Comment