I (Stephanie) have recently been informed of something very disturbing taking place at the Southern Baptist Convention this week. I have posted several links below for our readers to read up on the topic. I would really appreciate it if you could read up and let me know what you think! I have planned a response to Dr. Mohler. Thanks!
What Dr. Mohler suggested...
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-06-17
The Actual Resolution...
http://prayerandtheword.blogspot.com/2006/04/sbc-resolution-on-exit-strategy-from.html
Some other comments...
http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_20060425-resolution-for-sbc-annual-meeting.htm
An interesting conversation...
http://thecherrypitt.blogspot.com/2006/04/being-christian-kid-in-secular-world.html
7 comments:
While I have not had time to think about the proposed resolution, I agree with it on certain levels. I also disagree on other levels. I have already decided that I will do whatever is within my grasp to homeschool my children or send them to a private Christian school.
The secular schools are giving forth a strong secular worldview, and we can't change that. Even if our children come home to a strong, informed, and teaching environment (where they are given good information and taught a strong biblical worldview), it's hard to combat a 40-hour school week with a 20-hour home week. What I mean is this, children are in school eight waking hours a day more or less. They spend about four to five waking hours a day at home. The sheer number of hours that they are fed unbiblical information is damaging.
Kiki had Christian education herself. I believe that's probably a strong reason that she's able to give her children such a powerful biblical worldview. Unfortunately, many of the families in our churches don't have the kind of background. Especially the single parent and underpriviledged families. Many times they are working extraordinary hours to provide for their families, which leaves their children in other people's care for even more time.
Why shouldn't we, as churches, make an extraordinary effort to provide a realistic option for them? A single parent obviously can't quit their job to homeschool. It's our responsibility, as their Christian family, to help give them options. That may simply mean that a portion of the church budget goes towards scholarships for Christian school. Or maybe we set up buddy systems. There are a couple of families in our church who homeschool. I bet they would be willing to partner with other families who can't use that option.
For instance, Family A Mom stays home with her children and homeschools them, thanks to Family A Dad, who makes a more than adequate salary. Unfortunately, Family B Mom is a single mother, and she must work simply so her children can eat. There is no way that she can quit. Family A partners with Family B. Family A Mom teaches all of the children each day, and Family B Mom has a 50% say on what material is used and how the children will be taught.
I see this as a huge opportunity for us, as a Christian community, to learn what real fellowship and ministry looks like. Forget the potluck meals after Sunday morning service. Let's really dig into each other's lives and help each other out!!
On the other hand, I definitely don't think we should make this a mandate. As it is, this is a strong suggestion. We cannot mandate that you must have your children homeschooled or privately educated in order to be a part of the SBC. We will almost single-handedly wipe out any hope of missions. We cannot reach hurting and needy families, if they must first pull their children out of public school.
It is a good suggestion, though. If nothing else, our parents need to be more aware of what their children are being taught. For every 1 Kiki, there are probably at least 10 other parents who are not instilling a strong biblical world view into their children's lives, mostly just because they are uninformed and unsure themselves.
It is certainly an opportunity for us to act as a church. We simply need to be mature and responsible with that action, truly seeking a stance and action that will bring GLORY to God, not more antipathy from the American Public.
Thanks for your thoughts, Lindsay! I feel much the same. I think it's a great idea that the SBC do something more to offer homeschooling or private Christian education to people who cannot afford it. I think that's a big problem today! Additionally, it is SO important that parents become more involved in the education of their children by being aware of the curriculum they are being taught and using that as a conversation piece with their children. So I'm with you. I both agree and disagree with this resolution.
The biggest problem I have with it is how extreme the language was of Dr. Shortt saying things like "public schools are stupid morally and academically." I don't think parents should just abandon public schools. It isn't just a mission field for teachers, it's a mission field for those students!
So yeah, it's definitely important that we all become more aware of what our children are being taught and take a stand, but not by not providing our students a realistic picture of what the world around them is like. It should be the personal choice of parents how to educate their kids and they should not be made to feel sinful if they choose public. If private education is chosen, parents need to make sure their kids are not raised in a bubble, something I know you will protect against. You will be a great mom! Thanks again for your thoughts!
Dear Marc and Steph,
Thanks for this forum to discuss this issue. I would like to challenge one of your ideas.
You state that the public schools are a mission field for students. Okay, at what age do you consider students to be old enough to be considered missionaries? Should students who have Christian parents, but who have not yet been saved themselves, be considered missionaries?
I read that the IMB requires a Journeyman missionariy candidate to be 21 years old and to have been a believer for at least two years.
Do you propose that a 6-year-old public school child who is not a believer at all should be a candidate for missionary service?
Before I will entertain the idea that school children should be considered missionaries, reasonable parameters on such service must be set. If Christians parents consider young children who have not professed Christ to be missionaries, I'm afraid I will not be able to take their position seriously.
Thanks again for the chance to discuss this issue.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for your response. I think how we define a missionary is different. I consider all Christ-followers missionaries. Yes, there are the "official" ones, but we are all called to share Christ with others.
I am a public school teacher and have personally witnessed some of my students sharing Christ with their classmates. You say, "Should students who have Christian parents, but who have not yet been saved themselves, be considered missionaries? Do you propose that a 6-year-old public school child who is not a believer at all should be a candidate for missionary service?" Students who are Christians are qualified to share Christ. I never communicated that students who have Christian parents but who aren't saved are "qualified."
We teach young Christians all their lives to share Christ, so I am concerned that by taking them out of the public schools, those opportunities would be fewer.
Thanks again for your response.
Stephanie
Jeff,
Thanks for your response. I think how we define a missionary is different. I consider all Christ-followers missionaries. Yes, there are the "official" ones, but we are all called to share Christ with others.
I am a public school teacher and have personally witnessed some of my students sharing Christ with their classmates. You say, "Should students who have Christian parents, but who have not yet been saved themselves, be considered missionaries? Do you propose that a 6-year-old public school child who is not a believer at all should be a candidate for missionary service?" Students who are Christians are qualified to share Christ. I never communicated that students who have Christian parents but who aren't saved are "qualified."
We teach young Christians all their lives to share Christ, so I am concerned that by taking them out of the public schools, those opportunities would be fewer.
Thanks again for your response.
Stephanie
Dear Marc and Steph,
Okay, so I guess you know where I'm going with this. If I grant, just for the sake of discussion, your point that children who are believers should be placed in the public schools as evangelists, then do you grant that children who have Christian parents, but who are not yet believers themselves, cannot possibly be considered evangelists?
If your rationale for having Christian children attend public schools is so that they can be evangelists, and so that they can have faith-strengthening experiences, then what is your rationale for having children of Christian parents, but who are not yet believers themselves, attend public schools?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
I think the purpose of schools is to learn...Math, Reading, Writing, Science, Social Studies, etc. I think Christians have turned public schools into a place where students should be receiving spiritual education too. In a perfect world, they would be. But I do not think Christians should knock public schools because they don't teach kids about God. That's not what public schools were soley created for. If you can afford private education or homeschooling and combine the two than that is awesome. But I think in the world we live in, to call public schools "stuck on stupid academically and morally" as Shortt said is unfair. People work very hard to make sure that students receive a quality education. I am speaking from the elementary level. I know students can glorify God in a public school setting by working hard and learning everything they need to. Students don't have to be learning about God at school to be glorifying him.
Stephanie
Post a Comment